More than Luther: The Reformation and the Rise of Pluralism in Europe [1 ed.] 9783666570964, 9783525570968

Citation preview

Karla Boersma / Herman J. Selderhuis (eds.)

More than Luther: The Reformation and the Rise of Pluralism in Europe Academic Studies

55

Refo500 Academic Studies Edited by Herman J. Selderhuis In Co-operation with Christopher B. Brown (Boston), Günter Frank (Bretten), Bruce Gordon (New Haven), Barbara Mahlmann-Bauer (Bern), Tarald Rasmussen (Oslo), Violet Soen (Leuven), Zsombor Tóth (Budapest), Günther Wassilowsky (Frankfurt), Siegrid Westphal (Osnabrück).

Volume 55

Karla Boersma and Herman J. Selderhuis (eds.)

More than Luther: The Reformation and the Rise of Pluralism in Europe

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek: The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data available online: http://dnb.de. © 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Theaterstraße 13, D-37073 Göttingen All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior written permission from the publisher. Typesetting: 3w+p, Rimpar Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Verlage | www.vandenhoeck-ruprecht-verlage.com ISSN 2197-0165 ISBN 978-3-666-57096-4

Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9

List of Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11

More than Luther Wim François/Antonio Gerace The Doctrine of Justification and the Rise of Pluralism in the Post-Tridentine Catholic Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15

Siegrid Westphal The Reform of Marriage and the “Reformed Marriage”

. . . . . . . . . .

45

Edit Szegedi Calvinisms in Early Modern East Central Europe (1550–1650) . . . . . . .

59

Reformers Maria Lucia Weigel Reformationen – Pluralität im Bild? Bildnisse von Johann Bockelson von Leiden, Thomas Müntzer und Andreas Bodenstein, genannt Karlstadt . .

81

Graeme Chatfield Christendom as Luther Understood It, and the Papacy and Anabaptists Misunderstood It . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Jane Schatkin Hettrick A Lutheran Hymnal of the Enlightenment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

6

Contents

Marta Quatrale Nikolaus von Amsdorf ’s Reply to Johannes Pfeffinger. Some Remarks on Luther’s Harvest in the So-Called Adiaphoristischer Streit . . . . . . . . . 131 Aurelio A. García Bullinger’s Exhortation for a Non-Contentious Ministry: The Adhortatio ad Ministros Ecclesiarum, ad Mutuam Concordiam Constituendam of 1572 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 Jeannette Kreijkes Is a Special Faith the Same as Saving Faith? Calvin’s Appropriation of Chrysostom’s Understanding of a Faith of Miracles . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

Reformations Csilla Gábor Religious Polemics in Late Sixteenth Century Hungary: Reconstruction and Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 Gábor Ittzés A Plurality of Beginnings: Luther’s Disputation against Scholastic Theology in Its Historical Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 Balázs Dávid Magyar Calvinus Theologus Legislator: Theological and Ethical Implications of the Genevan Moral Laws Related to Gambling, Dancing, and Dress Fashions in Calvin’s Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 Tomoji Odori The European Reformation and the Christian Minority in Early Modern Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 Gregory Soderberg Purity and Polity: Exploring Tensions in the Early Reformed Traditions . 241 Herman A. Speelman The Calvinistic Reformation and the Rise of Pluralism in Europe . . . . . 257

7

Contents

Izabela Winiarska-Górska Secularization of Ducal Prussia and the Polish Literary Language in the Sixteenth Century – Two Models of Modernization of a Religious Discourse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269

Influences: Synod of Dordt Erik A. de Boer/Donald Sinnema/Dolf te Velde Discipline Cases at the Synod of Dordt: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . 287 Donald Sinnema Procedural Wrangling in the Remonstrant Case at the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289 Erik A. de Boer De Causa Ecclesiae Campensis or: How Four Local Ministers Ended up on the National Agenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307 Dolf te Velde Collateral Damage? The Condemnation of Conrad Vorstius by the Synod of Dordt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321 Image Credits Index of Names

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341

Index of Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345 Author Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347

Introduction

The Seventh Annnual RefoRC conference, which was held May 10–12th 2017 in Wittenberg, focused on the topic More than Luther: The Reformation and the Rise of Pluralism in Europe. Close to ninety papers on this topic were presented and a selection of these is presented in this volume. Yet this selection reflects the broadness of the conference as well as the interdisciplinarity and interconfessionality that characterizes the Reformation Research Consortium. The conference underlined, once again, the fact that research on the reformations of the sixteenth century has not come to a conclusion in 2017. Quite the contrary, the 500th anniversary of Luther′s decisive action has demonstrated how wide a field of research is still open. The papers in this conference volume point to lacunae and will certainly stimulate further research. The papers are ordered chronologically as well as thematically, starting with three of the plenary papers. We want to thank the authors for their cooperation and William de Hek (Theological University Apeldoorn) for his assistance in the process of editing. Special thanks goes to the LEUCOREA Foundation for hosting the conference in such a pleasant way. Karla Boersma Herman J. Selderhuis

List of Abbreviations

ADB

Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, Historische Kommission bei der Königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften (ed.), 56 vol., München, reprint, Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1981. ADSND Donald Sinnema/Christian Moser/Herman J. Selderhuis (ed.) (2015ff), Acta et Documenta Synodi Nationalis Dordrechtanae (1618–1619), vol. 1, vol. 2.2, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. AELKZ Allgemeine Evangelisch-Lutherische Kirchenzeitung, Landesarchiv BadenWürttenberg, Leipzig 50, 1917, coll. 437–439. AL Annotated Luther, 6 vol., Timothy J. Wengert/Kirsi I. Stjerna/Paul W. Robinson/ Mary Jane/Hans J. Hillerbrand/Euan K. Cameron (ed.), Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015–2017. ARG Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1903ff. BBKL Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon, Friedrich Wilhelm Bautz/ Traugott Bautz (ed.), 38 vol., Hamm/Herzberg: Bautz, 1970ff. CO Calvin, John (1863–1900), Ioannis Calvini Opera quae supersunt omnia, Corpus Reformatorum vol. 29–87, Guilielmus Baum/August E. Cunitz/Eduard W.E. Reuss (ed.), 59 vol., Brunswick: C.A. Schwetschke. COR 2 Ioannis Calvini Opera Omnia: Denuo Recognita et Adnotatione Critica Instructa Notisque Illustrata, series 2: opera exegetica, Genève: Droz. CTS Pringle, William (ed.) (2009), Biblical Commentaries of John Calvin, 22 vol., Grand Rapids: Baker Books. GBSLM Geschichts-Blätter für Stadt und Land Magdeburg, Geschichtsverein für Magdeburg und Umland e.V (ed.), Magdeburg, 1866ff. LuthQ Lutheran Quarterly, Gettysburg: 1878–. LW Luther, Martin, Luther’s Works, J.J. Pelikan/H.C. Oswarld/H.T. Lehmann (ed.), 55 vol., Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1900–1986. MBW Scheible, H./Mundhenk, C. (ed.) (1977), Melanchthons Briefwechsel, Stuttgart: Frommann-Holzboog. NDB Neue Deutsche Biographie, Historische Kommission der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (ed.), 26 vol., Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1953ff. NKZ Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift, Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1890ff.

12

List of Abbreviations

NPNF 1 A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. First Series, Philip Schaff et al. (ed.), Buffalo: Christian Literature Company, 1886–1897, reprinted Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952–1956. OS John Calvin (1926–1936), Joannis Calvini Opera selecta, P. Barth/G. Niesel (ed.), Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag. OSA Oud-Synodaal Archief, in: Het Utrechts Archief. PG Patrologia Cursus Completus, Series Graeca, J.P. Migne (ed.), Paris: 1857–1912. SAK Stadsarchief Kampen. SC Rückert, Hanns et al. (ed.) (1936–2000), Supplementa Calviniana, 1–11.2, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. STD Studia teologicznodogmatyczne, Warsaw 1, 1974–. VD16 Verzeichnis der im deutschen Sprachbereich erschienenen Drucke des 16. Jahrhunderts, www.vd16.de. WA D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimarer Ausgabe), Schriften, Weimar: H. Böhlaus, 1983–2009. WA Br D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimarer Ausgabe), Briefwechsel, Weimar: H. Böhlaus, 1983–2009. WA DB D. Martin Luthers Werke. Die Deutsche Bibel, 12 vol., Weimar: Böhlau, 1906– 1961. Zwing. Zwingliana. Mitteilungen/Beiträge zur Geschichte Zwinglis, der Reformation und des Protestantismus in der Schweiz, Zürich: 1897/1904–.

More than Luther

Wim François/Antonio Gerace*

The Doctrine of Justification and the Rise of Pluralism in the Post-Tridentine Catholic Church

Introduction: Trent and Post-Tridentine Pluralism Regarding Grace, Free Will and Predestination Soon after beginning deliberations in the winter of 1545–1546, the Council of Trent agreed to give priority to those issues that were immediately at stake in the controversy with the Protestants, more specifically the question of Scripture and tradition (especially dealt with in Session 4) and the question of original sin and justification (Sessions 5 and 6). It may be helpful first to recapitulate the main lines of the Council’s ideas on these matters. On original sin, the Council argued that, due to the Fall, Adam lost both his sanctity and the justice “in which he was constituted” (“in qua constitutus fuerat”). As a consequence, he was subject to the concupiscence of the flesh, bodily corruption and death. Adam’s sin and its consequences were transmitted by sexual propagation from one generation to the next, affecting all members of the human race, in their body and soul (cf. O’Malley: 2013, 103). Man in the state of original sin, strictly speaking, cannot do a single work on his own to earn salvation, although, – and this is important –, de iure he is still able to act well. After the Fall, man’s capacities are weakened and sapped of their strength, but are in no way annihilated. Regarding the process of justification, the Council fathers emphasized the primacy of grace in all stages. In baptism, man receives the grace of God, through the merits of Christ, by which his sins are forgiven, both original sin and personal sins, and his soul is regenerated so that there is nothing left in the reborn that God would detest. The Council reconfirmed the theological idea of the gratia inhaerens, which implies that God’s “grace and charity that is poured forth into men’s hearts by the Holy Spirit”, changes, from within, the soul of the individual for the better (“renovatio interioris hominis”). Justification, in other words, is not simply imputed to the person, a clear statement not only in the light of the controversy with the Lu* We wish to thank drs. Jeremy Hovda, for having checked the English in the final version of this essay.

16

Wim François/Antonio Gerace

therans, but also in the light of future debates among Catholic theologians (cf. O’Malley: 2013, 115). However, the Council fathers also declared that man has to consent freely to the “movement of grace”, which is expressed in his doing good works, earning him further merits with a view to eternal salvation. The Council had to admit that concupiscence remains in the reborn, but against the Lutherans it emphasized that it is not a sin in the true and proper sense of the word, but rather the consequence of sin and an inclination to actual sin. It only becomes an actual sin when man gives in to the allurements of sin with the free consent of his will. Therefore, the Council stressed that man’s struggling against sin and his willing and performing the good that God wishes, can only happen under the stimulus from, and with the help of, God’s grace. On predestination the Council was short, warning against a rash presumption of being among the predestined (Tanner/Alberigo: 1990, 2.671–681; O’Malley: 2013, 102–116; also Leppin: 2013, 167–183; McGrath: 19982, 255–273; Duffy: 1993, 221–260; Lehmann: 1989, 368– 372). The decree on justification, which was the result of seven months of intensive debate, draft documents and reworked texts, has been praised for its balanced content and measured language by many, including John O’Malley in his 2013 book on the Council of Trent (115 and especially 253–255). However, the decree was unable to bring forth the desired reconciliation with the Protestants – not a single decree was able to do that – but it was also at the basis of heated debates among Catholic theologians of various schools and religious orders, something that O’Malley also recognized. Within a few years after the promulgation of the justification decree, the topics of grace, free will and predestination proved to be the most important bone of contention between the diverse theological schools in post-Tridentine Catholicism. What in an optimistic view may be characterized as theological pluralism, was at times a harsh controversy, the most important episodes of which we will now recall to the mind. We will first focus upon the situation in Louvain, where the positions of Michael Baius caused unrest as early as the 1550s and 1560s. The conflict eventually affected a large part of the Catholic theological world and was acerbated when the Jesuit Leonard Lessius voiced opposing views. Similar positions taken by the Spanish Jesuit Luis de Molina caused a bitter controversy with the Dominican Domingo Bañez and a group of Spanish Thomist theologians. Rome’s decision to reserve the question to its own discretion did not, however, prevent the so-called ‘Jansenist’ controversy from breaking out in the first part of the seventeenth century, a controversy that would haunt the Catholic Church in the following decades and even centuries to come.

The Doctrine of Justification and the Rise of Pluralism

17

Baius, Lessius and the Theological Faculties of Louvain and Douai The Louvain theologian Michel de Bay or Baius (1513–1589) is one of the first, if not the first, figure whose theological standpoints gave rise to major controversies, to the point that Rome was urged to intervene. Baius, from the Frenchspeaking south of the Low Countries, was from 1551 holder-ad-interim and from 1552 titular of the royal chair of Sacred Scriptures at the theological Faculty of Louvain, a position he would occupy for the next 37 years. In this capacity, Baius developed a new line within Louvain theology for which he found an ally in his friend and likeminded colleague John Hessels (1522–1566), as well as an eager audience among several students at the Louvain Faculty. Without dismissing scholastic theology as such, Baius and Hessels aimed at basing theology primarily upon the Bible and the Church fathers, with Augustine taking pride of place, for these were the sole authorities on which the Protestants wanted to base the debates – a method Baius explains in a famous letter he wrote to the Cardinal Lodovico Simonete in 1568 (Baius: 1696, 124–125). Living at the border of Europe’s Protestant regions, he considered this theological method to be the most appropriate for entering into a debate with the Calvinists, in the hope of bringing them back into the Catholic fold. Apart from his outspoken opinions on the sources of theology, Baius developed views with regard to the state of man before the Fall, man in his fallen nature, and man under grace, which challenged the norm set by the Council of Trent and which experimented with alternative language and approaches (Quilliet: 2007, 315–318; McGrath: 19982, 277–279; also Soen: 2007 and Grossi: 1968).1 Baius first argued that God created man with a “natura integra”, that is an “integer” or “innocent” nature, so that man was perfectly happy, was able to master, by his will, his physical instincts, more specifically the “concupiscentia carnis”, and, hence, was perfectly able to execute God’s commandments. It is important to notice that Baius was convinced that this “integer” or “innocent” nature was by no means the result of an additional supernatural grace, but that man was “naturaliter” created to obey God’s Law and to receive, as a reward, eternal beatitude (while at the same time recognizing that the Spirit dwells in the just man). Baius deviated manifestly from traditional theological reasoning, but he saw it as a necessary implication of the conviction that the Fall not only caused forfeiture of some additional supernatural grace, but thoroughly affected man’s nature itself. And this brings us to Baius’ second important theological intuition: man’s nature is profoundly corrupted after the Fall with the result that he is incapable of resisting the allurements of the flesh and obeying God’s com1 Quilliet’s book unfortunately lacks a decent apparatus of footnotes, although his account of the causa Baii and his representation of Baius’ theology is generally accurate.

18

Wim François/Antonio Gerace

mandments, viz. doing good works. Disordered concupiscence, which is the main characteristic of original sin, should be considered as an actual sin, even before man’s consent, argued Baius. Postlapsarian man, delivered to himself and without the help of grace, cannot do otherwise than sin. The so-called virtues of the pagans are vices and worth only eternal damnation. With his views on the complete corruption of human nature, Baius had come quite close to the teachings of the mainstream reformers, and had distanced himself from the Council of Trent, which had emphasized that man’s free will “had been weakened and sapped in its strength, [but] was in no way extinct” (Tanner/Alberigo: 1990, 2.671). There is a third element of Baius’ views that we should elaborate on, viz. that fallen nature has been restored to its original integrity through the redemptory work of Christ and the merits that issued from it. By virtue of Christ’s merits and through the gift of grace, God makes man just and this justice consists, according to Baius, in man’s ability to observe effectively God’s commandments, which are meritorious for eternal life. Baius did see a manifest link between justice and charity considered as the integral observance of God’s Law. He did not align himself with scholastic theology – reconfirmed at Trent – that considered justification as a gratia inhaerens or inherent grace instilled in man and renewing him ontologically from within. He limited himself to considering an “animi motus” or “movement of the soul”. He nevertheless accepted that this was an intrinsic justification – “Restauratur quod per peccatum in nobis periit” (Baius: 1565, 1. I, c. IX) – also taking his distance from the Protestant view which tended to see justification extrinsically as the non-imputation of sins. But for every concrete good act, man needed the help of God’s grace: “[…] in singulis actibus […] auxilio Dei indigent” (Baius: 1563, c. X) (Vanneste: 1994, 123–166; Vanneste: 1977, 327–350; also Quilliet: 2007, 321–324; Schelkens/Gielis: 2007, 436–443). Baius’ ideas led, very soon, to suspicion in theological and ecclesiastical circles in Louvain (and abroad) that he disregarded the scholastic tradition, consecrated at Trent, and came dangerously close to the theological viewpoints of Luther and Calvin. When one of Baius’ Franciscan students, namely Antonius Sablonius (Sablon) proved to be ‘affected’ by his teachings, the Roman instances entrusted Petrus Regis, former Provincial Minister and lecturer, to examine the question. Regis consulted the Louvain theologians as well as their Paris colleagues, and the latter declared in the course of 1560 fourteen propositions ascribed to Baius to be obviously “haereticae” or “falsae”, while also expressing serious doubts regarding four others. Baius opposed the validity and content of the Paris condemnation, and the ensuing controversy led to a deep and years-long division within the Franciscan Order in the (southern part of the) Low Countries (van Eijl: 1958, 227–238 and 273–293). Baius published in 1563, with the Louvain printer Petrus Zangrius Tiletanus, a collection of short treatises with telling titles, such as De libero hominis arbitrio

The Doctrine of Justification and the Rise of Pluralism

19

eiusque potestate, the De justitia et justificatione, and De sacrificio. The works were published with the approval of the official book censors, who were Louvain colleagues of Baius (including Francis Sonnius, Bishop of ‘s-Hertogenbosch since 1561). A new series of treatises was published in 1564–1565, containing De meritis operum, the De prima hominis justitia et virtutibus impiorum, the De sacramentis in genere contra Calvinum, and the De verbis sine quibus non perficitur sacramentum baptismi (all with the Louvain printer Johannes Bogardus). With the publication of these works, criticism within the Louvain Faculty of Theology grew stronger. Baius’ denouncers were led by Josse Ravesteijn ‘of Tielt’, called Tiletanus (1506–1570), who was a disciple of Ruard Tapper (1487–1559) and was, thus, a representative of the ‘old’ Louvain school of AugustinoThomism. Ravesteijn and his like-minded colleagues contacted King Philip II himself, so that Baius’ works were subject to examination by the theological faculties of Alcalá and Salamanca, which censured several of his propositions in 1565, especially taken from the second book including De meritis operum, De prima hominis justitia et virtutibus impiorum. King Philip was, however, quite slow in sending the censure to Louvain. As a reaction, Baius published in 1566 a new edition of his first (non-condemned) works, the Opuscula omnia, to which he added new treatises, such as De peccato originis, De charitate, De indulgentiis and De oratione pro defunctis (published with Johannes Bogardus). The Spanish universities were again alarmed, and in June 1567 the University of Alcalá issued a condemnation, targeting the treatises included in the Opuscula omnia. In the meantime, Ravesteijn and other theologians had, in concertation with the Cardinal-Archbishop of Malines, Granvelle, convinced King Philip II to intervene so that Rome would speak out. Subsequently, Pope Pius V issued a bull entitled Ex omnibus afflictionibus (1 October 1567), which condemned 76 or 79 propositions – depending on the edition – taken from the work of Baius, Hessels and others, without naming the authors. The bull was not published, but was sent to Granvelle’s vicar general Maximilian Morillon, who discretely presented the document, first to Baius personally and then in the closed college of Louvain doctors. All theologians, including Baius, attested their submission to the papal pronouncement (van Eijl: 1953, 719–776; also Quilliet: 2007, 324–328). Baius, who understood that his viewpoints were being targeted, wrote in early 1569 a personal letter to the Pope, in which he asked for a re-evaluation of his views. The Pope, however, replied to Baius that he maintained his earlier conclusions and that the propositions included in the bull were condemned. Although Baius was not immediately prepared to align himself by a written submission to the papal pronouncement, the Holy See choose to deal with the case patiently, because any disagreement within the Church would give further arguments to the Protestant adversaries. Only after a few months, and at the instigation of the Duke of Alba, the Governor of the Low Countries, did Baius’

20

Wim François/Antonio Gerace

Louvain colleagues manage to convince him to align himself in writing with the Pope’s view as expressed in Ex omnibus afflictionibus. In any case, the controversy did not harm Baius’ career: in 1575, he became dean of the collegial church of Saint-Peter and vice–chancellor of the University of Louvain, which might be regarded as the most important position an academic could obtain (Quilliet: 2007, 328–330). Meanwhile, Pope Pius’ bull of 1567 was subject to divergent interpretations. Depending on where a certain comma was placed in the conclusion of the bull, it could be read either as a full-fledged condemnation or as a soft warning. The discussion about the comma pianum caused Pope Gregory XIII to issue a new bull Provisionis Nostrae in 1580, which removed any doubt about Pope Pius’ bull and the condemnations it contained. During a solemn reunion at the Faculty, Baius recognized that the papal condemnation related effectively to what was included in his writings; he aligned himself with the papal pronouncements, and wrote, at the explicit demand of the envoy of the Pope, the Jesuit Cardinal Francis Toletus, a confession, which has since become notorious in the Catholic Church (van Eijl: 1955, 499–542; Quaghebeur: 2003, 61–79; Quilliet: 2007, 331–333). One of the most determined adversaries of Baius was Robert Bellarmine, who in that period held lectures in Louvain’s Jesuit college, refuting the teachings of Baius.2 Later in the essay, we will return to Bellarmine’s work, but first we will turn to the so-called Formula doctrinae, the ‘official doctrine’ drawn up by the royal professor of scholastic theology Johannes Lensaeus (Jean de Lens [1541–1593]) in 1586, on behalf of the Louvain Faculty of Theology and in reaction to Baius’ positions (Steyaert: 1742, 1.193–225). Given the topics at stake in the controversy, the Formula doctrinae concentrates on original sin and its consequences, arguing: (1) man’s original justice should be considered as a supernatural gift of grace; (2) through the Fall, man forfeited original justice, his natural capacities to do good were weakened but not entirely annihilated; (3) justification should be seen as an interior renovation of man’s soul by inherent grace so that man, subsequently, can observe God’s precepts. Lensaeus, in particular, invoked the authority of Paul and Augustine, claiming above all to provide a correct interpretation of the Church father, which was one of the main points of contention of the controversy. The Formula doctrinae was regarded as an important codification of the ‘official’ Louvain doctrine in the years to come, and was applauded by the Roman authorities (Roegiers: 2003, 5–6; van Eijl: 1994, 215). 2 “Around the end of 1579, Bellarmine reviewed the manuscripts of his Louvain lectures and selected the passages relating to his refutation of Baius’ teachings. These selected texts were then edited as: Refutatio Baii excerpta ex commentariis P. Bellarmini in Summa Divini Thomae. It is a work intended to be circulated within the Society of Jesus” (Cai: 2014, 47). De gratia primi hominis (1593) was the most important anti-baianist writing that issued from the controversy between Bellarmine and the Louvain professor.

The Doctrine of Justification and the Rise of Pluralism

21

A year later, in 1587, the Louvain Faculty of Theology felt obliged to proceed against an adversary on another flank. The Jesuits, who had become established in Louvain in 1542 at the behest of Ruard Tapper, strove, from 1583, to open up their philosophical and theological courses to all students from the University, with the concomitant ambition of granting academic degrees, as they did at Louvain’s French-speaking sister-university in Douai. Apart from the fact that the University felt its monopoly on education threatened, the Faculty also took offense at the theological views that some young Jesuit professors propagated in their Louvain College, views that differed from the Formula doctrinae. Possibly at the instigation of Michael Baius himself (van Eijl: 1994, 216; Bernard: 1926, 453), the Faculty issued a censure on 12 September 1587 on 34 propositions which had been defended by the Jesuits Leonard Lessius (1554–1623) – in his famous Theses theologicae (1586) – and John Hamelius (1554–1589). The condemnation was followed on 20 February 1588 by another, and even more developed and outspoken censure from the Douai Faculty of Theology, of which William Hessels van Est (Estius [1542–1613]) was the principal author (Censvræ facultatum: 1641, 3–40 [censura lovaniensis]), 41–118 [censura duacensis]; Stucco: 2014, 279–283; van Eijl: 1994, 217–223; also Roegiers: 2012, 159–161; Rai: 2016, 89–93, esp. 92; Roegiers: 2003, 6, and Boute: 2010, 268– 311). All points of criticism concerned Lessius’ daring emphasis on man’s cooperation in the economy of salvation, which the Louvain and Douai theologians considered to be a deviation from Augustine’s theology and highly suspect of “semi-Pelagianism” (Backus/Goudriaan: 2014, 25–46). The Louvain theologians took offense, for example, at Lessius’ view that after the Fall, God gave Adam and his posterity the sufficient means against sin and the aids to pursue eternal life, in entire other words, He gave them suffient help so that they were able to return to Him (“possint reverti”). This was one point on which Lessius was very insistent. And although the theologians had to admit that “in a certain sense” (“aliquot sensu”) one could speak of sufficient aids, since God’s benefices would never be absent from this world, so that adults who used them in good way could come to salvation, they emphasized that “in a proper and exact way of speaking” it could not be said that God gives sufficient aids to salvation to all of mankind. In this regard they pointed to God’s Law, which was given to the Jewish people, some of whom made a good use of it, but it was absolutely not “sufficient” for the salvation of the Jews and even contributed to their rejection (Assertio II, in Censvræ facultatum: 1641, 24–25; expressly on sufficient grace, see also Assertio III, 25–26; VII, 30–31; XVI, 42–43; XVIII, 47–48; XIX, 48–49 etc.).3 Further: although Lessius suggested that sufficient grace was given to all men, he stressed that grace was only made 3 It must be noted that the Assertio II reported in the Louvain censura “Deus post praevisum peccatum originale habuit”, has another lectio in the Douai censura, “Deus post primum peccatum originale habuit”, 82. The latter reading may be the original one.

22

Wim François/Antonio Gerace

efficacious when man accepted this graceful offer through a free decision of his own will and the performance of good acts (“velle” and “perficere” or “exsequi”), which implied that man could also refuse God’s offer. The Louvain theologians for their part emphasized that “God’s grace was intrinsically and from itself efficacious” (“gratia divina ex se ab intrinseco efficax”) in those people who were predestined to receive its benefits, so that they came quite close to holding the irresistibility of God’s grace (e. g. Assertio X, in Censvræ facultatum: 1641, 34–36; also Assertio XII, 37–38). According to the Louvain and Douai theologians, God efficaciously foreordained the number of the predestined from all eternity, on the basis of his absolute sovereign will. Their views about a “predestinatio ‘ante’ previsa merita” were a reply to Lessius’ suggestion that not everything was established in God’s eternal decree, that there was room for man’s free will and consequent contingencies, and that God made his predestinatory decrees on the basis of a foreknowledge of man’s cooperation with his grace. Lessius’ view about a “predestinatio ‘ex’ praevisis meritis” was among the most semi-Pelagian expressions to be found in early modern Catholic theology (Assertio XXX, in Censvræ facultatum: 1641, 59; 111–113).4 Lessius replied to the censure by the Louvain and Douai theologians by affirming that the 34 propositions were taken out of their original context and distorted in their meaning. To clarify his position, he wrote a Responsio, trying to bring his views closer to those of Augustine. He sent this document to Claudio Acquaviva, the Superior General of the Society of Jesus, who, in his turn, asked the advice of some prominent theologians of the Order, among whom Robert Bellarmine and Jean Azor (van Eijl: 1994, 224–255). Although Bellarmine held mainstream ideas regarding the relation between sufficient and efficacious grace, he was initially prepared to defend his confrere before the Roman instances. Lessius’ sustained acceptance of the view that predestination is ordained on the basis of foreseen merits (“ex praevisis meritis”),5 as well as politics within the Jesuit Order in the wake of the congregations de auxiliis (cf. intra), drove Bellarmine to take more distance (Rai: 2016, 99–101). Actually, Bellarmine’s position was closer to the Augustinian tradition, and modern scholarship speaks about a ‘Bellarmine Augustinism’. In any case, even though Louvain and Douai condemned Lessius’

4 Van Eijl somewhat inaccurately writes about a “praedestinatio propter praevisa merita”, whereas the Latin reads “praedestinationem ad gloriam pendere ex operibus praevisis” (1994, 214). 5 Still in 1610 Lessius maintained, with reference to Augustine, that predestination is “ex praevisis meritis” (Lessius: 1610, 258; the reference is to Augustinus, Div. quaest. Simpl., I, q. 2, 4 [CCSL 44], 28).

The Doctrine of Justification and the Rise of Pluralism

23

ideas, other faculties of theology, such as that of Paris, and even some bishops sided with Lessius’ positions against those of Baius (Broggio: 2009, 55–56).6

Molina and Bañez in Spain While this controversy raged in the Low Countries at the Universities of Louvain and Douai, another theological controversy arose in Spain where Dominican theologians and Jesuits became engaged in a bitter theological debate on the role of human free will in the economy of salvation. In Salamanca in the years 1582– 1584 an “open scholarly engagement” took place between the Dominican Domingo Bañez (1528–1604) and the Jesuits Prudencio de Montemayor (d. 1599) and Luis de Léon (1527–1591). The debate led the Inquisitor Juan de Arrende to proceed against the two Jesuits, and on 3 February 1584, after two years of debate, the Cardinal Gaspar de Quiroga forbade Luis de Léon from teaching, even privately, and deprived Montemayor of his lectureship for seven years. The controversy seriously escalated in 1588, when the Jesuit Luis de Molina (1535–1600) published his book, commonly called the Concordia, whose full title is De liberi arbitrii cum gratiae donis, divina praescientia, providentia, praedestinatione et reprobatione Concordia [“On the Concord of the Free Will with the Gifts of Grace, Divine Foreknowledge, Providence, Predestination and Reprobation”] (e. g. Matava: 2016, 16–36; Broggio: 2009; McGrath: 19982, 279–281; Beltran de Heredia: 1968; also Stucco: 2014, 79–140; Quilliet: 2007, 335–352). The book had received approval from the official book censor, the Dominican friar Bartolomeo Ferreira, although other Dominicans, including Domingo Bañez, were already growing concerned with what they considered to be statements of doubtful orthodoxy. According to Molina, God wants all men to be saved and, to that aim, gives the sufficient means, but it is up to man to make these opportunities efficacious through the free consent of his will, a situation which includes the possibility of not accepting God’s gracious offer. In effect, according to Molina, “it may happen that, between two persons whom God calls more inwardly with equal aid, one would convert himself, according to the freedom of his own free will, and the other would persist in his infidelity. It also often happens that, with the same aid, one does not convert himself, another does” (Molina: 1588, q. 14, ar. 13, d. 12, p. 52–53). These ideas were similar to those defended by Lessius in Louvain, but they were in clear contraposition with the views of Bañez, as we will see. In any case, for Molina the consent of free will was crucial, a freedom which was believed to consist in a preceding independent judgement of the reason. Molina self-evidently accepted 6 Bishops such as Joannes Hauchin (Malines), Lindanus (Roermond), Pierre Simons (Ypres), defended Lessius’ position against Baius.

24

Wim François/Antonio Gerace

that man remains incapable of doing works that lead to his salvation, without the aid of God’s grace (“concursus Dei generalis”; Molina: 1588, q. 14, ar. 13, d. 7, p. 22). God’s help, however does not operate ‘on’ the secundae causae, as the Thomists thought the prœmotio physica does, but it acts ‘with’ the secundae causae, like a simultaneous help that safeguards man’s free action. Molina maintained that “all the effect and all the action, totally called effect, are both by God and by our free will, like two parts of one integral cause, of the action as well as of the effect” (Molina: 1588, q. 14, ar. 13, d. 12, p. 61).7 One of the main challenges to the Molinist system was the reconciliation of man’s freedom with God’s foreknowledge, providence, and predestination. To answer this question, Molina developed his famous theory of the three logical levels of knowledge in God. First, there is the knowledge of simple intelligence (“scientia simplicis intelligentiae”), through which God knows all possible things. Second, there is the famous middle knowledge (“scientia media”), which is in the core of the Molinist system, but which in fact goes back to Pedro de Fonseca (1528–1599), who may have been the first to use that term (Perszyk: 2011, 1, fn. 1). By means of this middle knowledge, God has certain foreknowledge of what any person would do in any given circumstance, ‘before’ those circumstances are actualized. On this level, there remains at least the logical possibility that the opposite will happen, for this logical possibility guarantees human free will. Third is the knowledge of vision (“scientia visionis”), by which God sees everything that He will actually create (Gerace: 2016, 114–115; Cruz Cruz: 2014; Freddoso: 1988, 46–47; Gaskin: 1950, 412–430). The knowledge of simple intelligence and middle knowledge are both prior to any intervention on the part of God’s will, but if the first level is addressed to all potencies, including those that will not be actualized, the second has a restricted focus since it is addressed only to those potencies that would be actualized. “Would” but not “will”, since the future actualization of those potencies is – at least on this level – not necessary, since there is still the logical possibility of their opposite occuring.8 This means that, although God has certain foreknowledge of human actions, they are free because antecedent to the intervention of God’s will. Therefore, at least logically, a person could do the opposite of what God has foreknown. It also means that 7 Apart from this gratia cooperans, Molina also accepts a gratia praeveniens as an “auxilium Dei particulare” by means of which God helps our will in the accomplishment of its supernatural aims, including the intellectual scrutiny of revealed truths. Both aspects of grace constitute the vocation to the faith, leaving to man the liberty to believe or not to believe (Molina: 1588, q. 14, ar. 13, d. 14, m. 2, p. 66). 8 As Molina further explains in the edition of 1595, where he added the disputatio 51, 52, 53, it could happen that one who had been predestined would be condemned and one who had been rejected would be saved (Molina: 1595, q. 14, ar. 13, d. 51, p. 219). Molina’s scientia media was influenced by John Duns Scotus (cf. amongst others Dekker: 1993 and Anfray: 2014).

The Doctrine of Justification and the Rise of Pluralism

25

God’s predestination and providence, being acts of his will, come logically after middle knowledge. These acts of God’s will, however, do not depend on God’s middle knowledge; in other words, God does not make his decision on the basis of his foreknowledge, lest his will be conditioned by human free will. It is only according to his own sovereign decision (“pro suo solo beneplacito”) that God predestines people, bestowing on them his divine aids. On the other hand, predestination also comes through the faithful’s own merits, considered as an instrumental cause of salvation (“praedestinatio per propria merita” and not, as Lessius holds, “praedestinatio ex praevisis meritis”).9 Similarly, reprobation is also subject to God’s will, a will that permits man to sin if man so wishes (Molina: 1588, q. 23, ar. 3, p. 398). In sum, although it is God who eventually and sovereignly decides whether to save a person or not, a person’s works play an evident role, according to Molina. It may seem contradictory, but scientia media is the ‘theological device’ intended to solve this inconsistency. Molina and his theology were countered by an array of Dominican theologians, the most famous of whom was Domingo Bañez, but which also included confreres such as Thomas de Lémos and Didace Alvarez. Bañez, more so than in earlier theological systems, distinguished between sufficient and efficacious grace, a distinction that gained increased importance in the theological discussions of the time. Though the distinction is present in some form in the writings of Augustine and Thomas, it is not developed there at length. Sufficient grace implies that Christ, through his death and resurrection, and the merits they entail, gave all men the possibility of being saved (“posse”). “Nevertheless, God does not always intend his auxilium to efficaciously result in a salutary act of free choice”, as Robert Matava argues in his recent book on Bañez. Efficacious grace means that God’s grace becomes efficient solely in those whose will is brought in line with His will (“velle”) and who are, subsequently, able to do good works (“exsequi” or “perficere”). They are those whom God has from all eternity chosen, irrespective of any contribution on their part, to receive the efficacious auxilium to long for the good and to be able to do what they long for. This way, they increase merits with a view to salvation. It should however be emphasized that, according to Bañez, and seen from God’s point of view, “all grace is ‘effi9 Molina never uses the expression “post praevisa merita”, and it cannot be accepted since it means that a person’s action influences God’s decision: in such a case, only after having seen the person’s behavior, would God decide to save or damn her/him, but this is an evident limitation of God’s absolute power. On the contrary, God is completely free in his decision, but a person can contribute to her/his salvation through her/his own merits (“praedestinatio per propria merita”). See Molina: 1595 q. 53, ar. 13, d. 14, m. 3, p. 262 and Molina: 1588, q. 23, ar. 4 & 5, d. 1, m. 8, p. 448. On God’s beneplacit will, see Molina: 1588, q. 23, ar. 4 & 5, d. 1, m. 9, p. 466. Also Cruz Cruz: 2014, 102, n. 42. At p. 100, n. 37 Cruz affirms he based his analysis on Le Bachelet: 1931, I, xi–xiii. Comp. Gerace: 2016, 118–119.

26

Wim François/Antonio Gerace

cacious’ in the sense that all grace efficaciously brings about the effect God intends it to achieve” and “the efficacy of auxilium is not determined by the mode of human response to it” (Matava: 2016, 47; Cai: 2012, 305–318; on Bañez, also McGrath: 19982, 281–282; Stucco: 2014, 141–154). In the Thomist-Bañezian system, the idea of a prœmotio physica or prœdeterminatio physica plays a crucial role (Cai: 2012, 296–305; Peroutka: 2010, 107). Its point of departure is the idea that God is the first and universal cause (causa prima) and the prime mover (motor primus), and that all secondary agents act in virtue of God Himself. This implies that God’s grace efficaciously “pre-moves” or “predetermines” the will of those predestined to that aim, so that it is solely prepared to long for the good God wants, and is moved to perform what was longed for. We are of course very close here to the ideas of the irresistibility of God’s efficacious grace and the de facto denial of man’s free will. However, in this system, perfect freedom does not consist in the “indeterminedness” to do something or to do something contrary, whether good or evil, but it is a freedom perfected by God’s efficacious grace so that man is efficaciously moved by God’s grace to choose the good that God commands. The difference between Bañez and Molina (Oakes: 2016, 154–157; Matava: 2016, 116–126; Aichele/Kaufmann: 2014, xxiii–xxviii) can easily be shown thanks to a passage taken from Bañez’ Scholastica Commentaria in primam partem Thomae Aquinatis Summa Theologiae, first published in 1584. Bañez takes the opposite point of view from Molina regarding the role of free will in the economy of salvation, when he argues: “ignorantly some people are used to saying that with the same aid of God’s grace, one converts himself, and another one does not. When talking this way, people easily fall into the error of the Pelagians” (Bañez: 1584, Iam, q. 19, ar. 8, p. 367F–368 A). Bañez therefore maintains that God bestows his grace only on those He foreknows and predestines so that they will accept it; otherwise, the gift of grace would be useless. Said inversely, God does not undertake his salvatory initiative for those who do not want to believe, but for those whom He has predestined to believe. For them, God’s grace is sufficient (“sufficit”) to make them willing to do so (Bañez: 1584, Iam, q. 19, ar. 6, p. 364B). The use of the verb sufficere is not to be misinterpreted; indeed, in Bañez’ system the notion of sufficient grace is eroded and “the distinction between sufficient and efficacious grace is one of genus. Sufficient grace (consisting of precepts, instructions, admonitions, corrections) would suffice indeed, as long as man was not so corrupt; however, since he is, he needs God to effectively move his will in a true and real manner, suavely, without coercion” (Stucco: 2014, 201; Cai: 2012, 311–316).10

10 Bañez does not see the difference between sufficient and efficacious grace, first because he maintains that God’s efficacious grace assists human free will, and second, because the good

The Doctrine of Justification and the Rise of Pluralism

27

Bañez also explains that notwithstanding his providence and immutable decision, God does not “tie” (“ligare”) nor “destroy” (“destruere”) human free will, rather he “preserves” (“conservare”) and “effectuates” (“efficere”) it. In this regard Bañez maintains that there is no “ab extrinseco cooperation” between God and man, since this presupposes an ‘absolute’ human will, able on its own to choose between good and evil, a possibility that dangerously leads to Pelagianism. On the contrary, the cooperation between God and man is an effect that infallibly follows from the aid of God’s preparative grace. Such cooperation does not, however, limit human free will, rather it “makes complete” (“perficere”) a person’s free will, so that s/he is willing to perform good actions (Bañez: 1584, IIam IIae, q. 19, ar. 9, p. 575C; Cai: 2012, 319–325).11 In short, God’s efficacious grace is key to Bañez’ system. The human will is considered in a thoroughly Augustinian way, not as the ability to choose between good and evil indiscriminately, but as the desire to act well, since it has been perfected by God’s efficacious grace (on Bañez’ view, see also Cai: 2010). Given the great distance between Molina’s work and the traditional Dominican-Thomistic view (O’Connor: 1947), the Concordia was soon suspected of heresy by the Inquisitor Bartolomeo Fereira. Molina’s teachings seemed to be very close to those of Prudencio de Montemayor. Moreover, Bañez made his own criticism of Molina’s Concordia, but the Jesuit replied to Bañez by adding an appendix to the second edition of his Concordia in 1589, which was then approved by the Inquisitor. However, the controversy was not resolved there. In 1590 Bañez and the Mercedarian Francisco Zumel (ca. 1540–1607) were appointed to create a new Index librorum prohibitorum: in 1593 they started to scrutinize Molina’s Concordia as well as his Commentaria on Aquinas’ Summa theologiae. In reaction, Molina denounced, in 1594, both Bañez and Zumel as promoters of Reformation-minded teachings, to which Bañez responded with another censure of the Jesuit’s works, arguing that they went against both the doctrine of the Church and Aquinas’ philosophy.

use of it is an “effect of the preparative grace (gratia praeparans) and of God’s efficaciously adjuvant grace (gratia Dei efficaciter adiuvans)” (Bañez: 1584, IIam IIae, q. 19, ar. 9, p. 575C). 11 “Ut vero quia ipse Deus sua providentia, & immutabili consilio non ligat, neque destruit iudicium nostrum, quo iudicamus indifferentiam medii, & ordinabilitatem eius, & ordinandum esse ad finem, non etiam nostrae operationis libertatem destruit, sed potius illam efficaciter efficit, fovet, atque conservat. Ecce quomodo cum divina providentia infallibili, & efficaci stat nostrae operationis libertas, imò sine illa stare non posset. Non enim est cooperatio quae quasi ab extrinseco coniungatur cum divino auxilio: hoc enim esset declinare in errorem Pelagianum: sed est effectus, qui consequitur infallibiliter ex tali auxilio gratiae praeparantis. Neque hoc derogat libertati arbitrii, sed potiùs perficit libertatem ad bene operandum.”

28

Wim François/Antonio Gerace

Bellarmine and the Middle Path Between Anti-Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians In 1586, the Jesuit theologian Robert Bellarmine (1542–1621) began publishing his three-volume Disputationum de controversiis christianae fidei: the first volume was published in 1586, the second in 1588, and the third in 1593 (Motta: 2005, 226–243; Richgels: 1980, 3; Bodrick: 1961, 189–216; also Biersack: 1994, 167–178; Ceyssens: 1994, 179–205).12 In the final volume, he mainly focused on the relation between eternal predestination, temporal grace and human free will, also giving attention to the relation between justification and good works (Bellarmine: 1593, 504–1415). As Bellarmine explains, there are three main doctrines concerning predestination: (1) Pelagianism, which teaches that a man can save himself only by means of his own force, without prevenient grace (Bellarmine: 1593, 580B); (2) the opposite position voiced by Calvin and Luther, which does not recognize a difference between sufficient and efficacious grace, and which, according to Bellarmine, claims that all who are not separated from the “mass of perdition” by means of divine predestination, lack the sufficient aid to be saved (Bellarmine: 1593, 580C); (3) in medio stat virtus, the position of the Catholic Church, which teaches that each person receives sufficient grace, but without prevenient grace, nobody can desire, ask for, or accept God’s grace. In order to corroborate this view, Bellarmine refers to many theologians, including Louvain scholars, such as Pope Adrian VI, John Driedo and Ruard Tapper (Bellarmine: 1593, 580C–581 A). In the third volume of the Disputationes Bellarmine also criticizes the doctrines of his confreres Luis de Molina and Leonard Lessius, without naming them. Nevertheless, the references to their doctrines are evident, since Bellarmine directly mentions their doctrine on predestination, as we will show further on. Bellarmine first refers to Molina, by claiming that there is a difference between the ratio of predestination and its execution. Indeed, by means of predestination, God gave the kingdom of heaven to “determined men” (“certi homines”), whom he loved without any foreknowledge of their good works. At the same time, concerning the execution, God established that good works are necessary to obtain eternal life. Hence, according to Bellarmine, the difference between these two rationes is the basis upon which a Catholic theologian ought to build his doctrine of predestination. Hence, he clarifies that (Molina’s) doctrine of a “praedestinatio per propria merita”, which Bellarmine interprets as “praedestinatio per opera bona praevisa” could not be accepted tout court, since such an expression can be understood in two different ways, making it either true or false. Indeed, if “per opera praevisa” is related to the verb “[God] predestined” – so to 12 The first edition of the third volume (1593) was printed in both Ingolstadt (with David Sartorius) and Lyon (with Jean Pillehotte). For this essay, we use the Ingolstadt-edition.

The Doctrine of Justification and the Rise of Pluralism

29

the ratio of predestination –, then the doctrine is false, since it supposes that God has predestined men to receive the kingdom of heaven, because he first foresaw their good works. In this way, in his act of choice, the Creator would be influenced by the creature, which implies that He would no longer be free and his absolute sovereignty would be limited. However, if “per opera praevisa” relates to the verb “to grant [the kingdom of heaven]” – so to the ratio of the execution – then the sentence is true, since glorification is the effect of both justification and good works ( just as justification is the effect of vocation, and vocation is the effect of predestination) (Bellarmine: 1593, 628B). Concerning Lessius, Bellarmine claims that Augustine, basing himself on other Church fathers – though Bellarmine does not specify on whom – maintained that in the Catholic Church the doctrine of predestination on the basis of God’s free sovereign will (“gratuita praedestinatio”) has always been present. Therefore, the doctrine of “praedestinatio ex operibus praevisis” could not possibly be defended in the Church, unless we were to accept that a person can contribute aliquid boni that makes her/him just and separates her/him from the mass of perdition. But, as Bellarmine reiterates, this doctrine of predestination “ex operibus praevisis” is universally rejected by all the Church fathers (1593, 629B). Moreover, on the basis of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans 9:15, Bellarmine confirms that predestination, vocation and separation [of the faithful] from the mass of perdition do not depend on any foreknowledge of human works; they merely depend on God’s own discretion and will (“beneplacitum”) (Bellarmine: 1593, 612 A), as Molina also affirmed in his Concordia (1588, 416). Bellarmine therefore maintains that God predestined some people but not others, and that he did solely on the basis of his own sovereign decision. On the other hand, good works are needed to attain salvation. In this scheme, grace plays a key-role (Motta: 2005, 441–498). The gift of God’s grace is twofold: sufficient and efficacious. Sufficient grace is given to everyone, in every time and place, and by means of it, people have the possibility (“posse”) to will the good and to act well. However, sufficient grace does not determine that people are really going to act well. Therefore, people need efficacious grace which is, however, not given to everyone, but is only granted to some as a “singular gift” (“donum singulare”), consisting of faith, perseverance, continence, etc. so that those who receive it can effectively act accordingly (Bellarmine: 15883 (1586), 549C).13 In Bellarmine’s view man’s possibility “to will” is very prominently elaborated, (even on the level of sufficient grace), which sharpens the contrast with Bañez’ doctrine of prœmotio physica. Bellarmine further analyzes the concept of grace according to its seven partitions, and to that end makes abundant use of Augustine: (1) eternal 13 We were not able to consult the editio princeps of the first volume of the Disputationes (1586), hence we refer to the 1588 Ingolstadt-edition.

30

Wim François/Antonio Gerace

and temporal; (2) “grace freely given” or “gratuitous grace” and “grace that makes us pleasing” in God’s eyes; (3) permanent or habitual grace and “grace of special aid”; (4) the latter grace can be excitant or adjuvant; (5) grace can be also sufficient or efficacious; (6) efficacious grace can be both operating and cooperating; and (7) prevenient or subsequent grace. First, eternal grace is God’s love by means of which He loved men from eternity, before the creation of the world, predestining and electing (some of) them to be adopted as his sons, while temporal grace represents all the aids that mankind receives in the worldly life, as an effect of eternal grace (Bellarmine: 1593, 521D). In this sense, Bellarmine is here recovering Augustine’s distinction between predestination, which is the “preparation for grace” and the grace which is the gift granted during the temporal dimension, as an effect of predestination itself (Aug. De praed. Sanc. 10, 19 [BA 24], 522). Secondly, focusing upon temporal grace, Bellarmine distinguishes between “grace freely given” (“gratia gratis data”), which is a supernatural gift especially granted to some people with a view to the spiritual salvation of the other faithful, and the grace that “makes us pleasing” in God’s eyes (“gratia gratum faciens”), which is also a supernatural gift that relates to man’s own sanctification and salvation (Bellarmine: 1593, 521D–522 A).14 Third, the grace that “makes us pleasing” in God’s eyes or “sanctifying grace”, can be “permanent”, when it constitutes a habitus infused into the faithful, who prove to have the three theological virtues – faith, hope and charity – or it can be a “special aid” (“gratia auxilii specialis”), viz. a motion, somewhat ad hoc, by which God helps man in his actions that transcend in one or another way his nature (Bellarmine: 1593, 522D–523 A). Fourth, this special aid can be twofold: “excitant” when God inspires or entices men’s hearts to perform good works, and “adjuvant” when God helps the faithful while acting well (Bellarmine: 1593, 524 A–C). Fifth, God’s aid can also be “sufficient”, since by means of it God prepares (“paratus est”) a person so that s/he has the possibility of wanting (“possit velle”) to believe, to convert or to do a good work, but still this person does not actually will it. It is only thanks to God’s “efficacious grace”, that the faithful infallibly will (“re ipsa velle”) and act accordingly, by believing, converting themselves and performing good works (Bellarmine: 1593, 524C–D). Sixth, efficacious grace can be conceived as “operating”, when it effects that a person wills, and “cooperating” when it effects that a person puts into action what he or she has previously willed (under the induction of operating grace) (Bellarmine: 1593, 524D). Bellarmine finally affirms that “excitant” and “operating” grace can also be conceived as “prevenient”, while “adjuvant” and “cooperating” grace can be conceived as “subsequent” (Bellarmine: 1593, 525 A). 14 According to Bellarmine, Adam’s original iustice was a question of “gratia gratum faciens” or sanctifying grace (e. g. Cai: 2014, 71 and 78).

The Doctrine of Justification and the Rise of Pluralism

31

Prevenient and subsequent therefore simply indicate the moments in which they work, whether prior to a vocation or during the performance of good works etc. Most importantly, Bellarmine stresses the necessity of both sufficient and efficacious grace in the economy of salvation. The first is sufficient since it is given to everybody, so that each person has the ability to desire the faith. However, to yield fruit, efficacious grace is needed, which God bestows to some men (and not others) according to his own decision.

The Roman Congregations on the Aids by Divine Grace The controversy between Bañez and Molina that dragged on for years, was the direct occasion for Rome to intervene, after the Holy See had already witnessed the earlier debates between Bañez and the Jesuits Prudencio de Montemayor and Luis de Léon (1582–1584 Salamanca), as well as the controversies between Lessius and Baius in Louvain and Douai (roughly 1585–1588). Eventually Pope Clement VIII forcefully silenced the debates in 1597, reserving deliberation about the theological issues at stake to the so-called Congregationes de auxiliis gratiae divinae. The Congregations on the Aids of Divine Grace met several times in the years 1598–1607 and looked for a solution, which above all called for the correct interpretation of Saint Augustine, the doctor gratiae. Very soon the congregation decided to censure Molina’s Concordia, a decision that Clement VIII was initially prepared to implement, but which he eventually declined to carry out, due to the influence of the Jesuits and their political protectors, not the least of whom was the Spanish King. Again, in 1601, the Concordia was judged to be censured, but once again, there was strong lobbying against the censure. To solve the question, Robert Bellarmine even proposed convening a new Council. Eventually Clement VIII decided to attend personally the debates between Dominicans and Jesuits between 1602–1604, after which he decided to condemn Molina’s teachings, since he preferred the Bañezian view. The Pope, however, died before being able to promulgate the condemnation. According to Matava, it was as if Bellarmine had ‘foreseen’ that the Pope would have died before being able to condemn Molina. The new Pope, Leo XI died soon after his enthronement, and his successor Paul V, who had followed the debates of the congregation as a cardinal, opted for listening again to the opinion of the two parties, as well as to that of each member. Eventually, in 1607 Paul V closed the debates by “issuing a decree forbidding the antagonists [viz., Dominicans and Jesuits] to call one another’s views heretical or even temerarious, according to the technical jargon of theological censure. The Holy See would, the Pope continued, resolve the issue at an opportune time” (Freddoso: 1988, viii). As a final act, in 1611 the Pope prohibited the publications of works related to the troublesome question of efficacious grace, except with his

32

Wim François/Antonio Gerace

own approval, a prohibition that was repeated in 1625 (Matava: 2016, 16–34; on the Congregationes de auxiliis, see also Stucco: 2014, 155–218). It should be observed, however, that this prohibition was not published in, e. g. the Netherlands.

The ‘Jansenist’ Controversy Outspoken anti-Pelagian ideas regarding grace and free will, were voiced by, amongst others, William Hessels van Est (Estius; 1542–1613), professor of theology in Douai, who had them included in his commentaries on Thomas Aquinas and in his commentaries on the Epistles of Paul (François: 2014, 119–130; Fleischmann: 1940). It was, however, another native of the northern Netherlands who would re-open ‘Pandora’s box’, namely Cornelius Jansenius (1585–1638). Jansenius had studied theology in Louvain, where a strong current of anti-pelagian Augustinian theology persisted. He perfected his studies, and especially his methodology, in France, where he met Jean Duvergier de Hauranne, also called ‘Abbot of Saint-Cyran’ (1581–1643). Together, they intensively studied the Bible and the Church fathers (especially Augustine). Jansenius became a doctor of theology as well as the first president of the Holland College (1617) and was appointed one year later as an ordinary professor at the Louvain Faculty of Theology (1618). In 1630 Jansenius even became the holder of the royal chair of Sacred Scriptures in Louvain, which was the Faculty’s most important chair. In 1635 he became bishop of Ypres, but died of the plague three years later (on Jansenius, see especially Orcibal: 1989; 1977, 351–380). Jansenius thought it was his personal vocation to find a solution to the problem that the Congregationes de auxiliis had left unsolved, through a thorough study of the Scriptures and the writings of Augustine on predestination, grace and free will, especially the Church father’s anti-Pelagian writings, while showing a certain disregard for speculative, scholastic theology. It resulted in a great synthesis of historical theology on the question, published posthumously in 1640 with the Louvain printer Jacob Zegers as the Augustinus. In this book and in his Bible commentaries, Jansenius emphasized, first, that human beings, corrupted by original sin, are prone to concupiscence, are able neither to choose nor to perform good works, and by necessity fall into sin: “[…] amissa boni faciendi et mali cavendi libertas, inductaque peccandi necessitas […]” (t. II, book III/III. De statu naturae lapsae, ch. 2, col. 433–436 and ch. 9–11, col. 470–480; book III/ IV. De statu naturae lapsae, ch. 18, col. 631–632). In several places in his threevolume book Jansenius argues, in the wake of Augustine, that “all the works of the infidels, how precious and perfect they may look from the angle of philosophical virtue, are in the real and proper sense sins” (here t. III, book I. De gratia Christi

The Doctrine of Justification and the Rise of Pluralism

33

Salvatoris, ch. 5, col. 19). People in the state of original sin are, therefore, worthy of eternal damnation, for “God cannot let sin go unpunished” (t. II, book IV/III. De statu purae naturae, ch. 2 and 3, col. 885–896). Secondly, postlapsarian man, whose free will has been enslaved by concupiscence, cannot free himself by his natural forces, but only by the grace of the Saviour (t. III, book I. De gratia Christi Salvatoris, ch. 2, col. 9–14). In other words, God grants salvation from eternal damnation to those whom He has elected to receive it, not on the basis of any foreseen merits on the man’s part, but on the basis of his own sovereign decision. The others are abandoned to the mass of perdition, not on the basis of any foreseen demerits, but as a deliberate act of divine justice given the gravity of original sin (e. g. t. III, book X. De gratia Christi Salvatoris, ch. 1–4, col. 1010– 1025). God’s grace works efficaciously (“infallibiliter operatur”) in the elect so that they not only are able (“posse”) to obey God, but are also willing (“velle”) to perform God’s commandments (“perficere”). Even more, the efficaciousness of God’s grace implies that the human will is incapable of resisting it: “Grace does not await for our consent, but rather produces it! Qua fit ut velit” – a point on which Jansenius is quite insistent, but one which would also cause him problems (e. g. t. III, book II. De gratia Christi Salvatoris, ch. 4, col. 97–102; especially ch. 24 and 25, col. 196–207; summary in Stucco: 2014, 241; Kolakowski: 1995, 14–15). Thirdly, it is not difficult to find utterances in Jansenius’ works suggesting that the Son of God, who died for his flock, did not die for all men, but only for the predestined. For Jansenius, it was a semi-Pelagian error to argue that Jesus died for all (t. III, book III. De gratia Christi Salvatoris, ch. 20 and 21, col. 369–392). This argument goes hand in hand with a denial of grace that is merely sufficient: “Ex natura gratiae Christi ostenditur, nullis dari sufficientem gratiam juxta sensum recentiorum”. If Christ had died for all humans, He would have yielded the merits or the grace that would save everybody. For this grace is always efficacious (and the will is unable to resist it). But Christ died only for the elect, and they alone are predestined to receive that grace it entails. Jansenius’ argument in chapter 13 of the third volume of his Augustinus, is very crucial here. It claims that it is an error of the semi-Pelagians to maintain that “God does not order impossible things and therefore He gives to all sufficient aid [enabling them] to do what he orders” (t. III, book III. De gratia Christi Salvatoris, ch. 4, col. 262–263; ch. 13, col. 324–337; Kolakowski: 1995, 10). Jansenius gave his name to a set of theological ideas, spiritual attitudes and devotional practices, which are in religious history known as ‘Jansenism’, counting adherents who are believed to have constituted a distinct group or even a genuine party within seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Catholicism. In reaction to this view, historians in the past few decades have argued that any attempt to see ‘Jansenism’ as a distinct and coherent historical group should be considered as upholding a historiographical myth, mainly shaped by its adver-

34

Wim François/Antonio Gerace

saries. Very famous is Lucien Ceyssens’ position that “Jansenism has never existed, at least not in that shape as anti-Jansenism has fought against” and that it was mainly a creation forged by its opponents, whether Jesuits or the popes that sided with them. According to Ceyssens Jansenism was whatever anti-Jansenism was not (Ceyssens: 1993, 129; 114). A similar position has been taken by the author Thomas O’Connor, who was at the very most prepared to see “a deceptive coherence between the different ‘Jansenisms’” (2012, 318; 330–333). Monique Cottret has recently voiced similar ideas (2016, 321). This position makes it clear that it is indeed a mistake to consider ‘Jansenism’ as a monolithic or static bloc containing positions that remained unaltered over a period of roughly 150 years (1640–1790). But against Ceyssens and likeminded scholars who considered Jansenism largely as a construct of its adversaries, it is far more fruitful to approach it as a dynamic movement developing from an initial nucleus – an antiPelagian theology of predestination, grace and free will – and adopting further contents and practices, as time and contexts evolved and condemnations succeeded. Following Peter Hersche (1977, 24–43), the Louvain scholar Jan Roegiers favored such a stratigraphic model and considered Jansenism as consisting of several layers or strata which were built one upon the other, as time and place changed, and as theological conflicts unfolded (2003, 2–3). To this should be added that individual ‘Jansenists’ adhered to theological viewpoints and adopted moral and devotional practices in various and often inconsistent ways. Although theologians like William Hessels van Est propagated radical antiPelagian viewpoints regarding predestination, grace and free will, next to rigorist moral viewpoints in the early seventeenth century, Jansenius’ publication of the Augustinus (1640) was pivotal to the movement and a reference point for generations of faithful who shared the same theological ideas, emotions, and the bent for a pessimist anthropology underlying them. Conscious of their own sinfulness and in search of salvation, ‘Jansenists’ inclined to “make the sufferings of their Savior their own” and follow the path of salvation He had shown. In this regard, they usually espoused a rigorist moral lifestyle, cherished a deeper spiritual piety focused on Jesus’ cross, and practiced strict penitential discipline. They required real contrition in confession, which implied an honest regret for having offended God, out of love for Him, and not merely out of a fear for God’s punishments and the fire of hell. The Jansenists’ scruples made them reluctant to receive frequent communion, since this was a sign of perfection and not a means to it (Strayer: 2008, 47–57; on Jansenism, see also McGrath: 19982, 282–284). It goes without saying that the ‘Jansenists’ were outspoken opponents of the above-sketched Molinist theology and of the concomitant life of faith they believed to be advocated by many Jesuits. It included a lax moral theology and bent for casuistry, which conflicted with ‘Jansenist’ moral rigorism and search for perfection. Jesuit theology and sacramental life tended to accept that attrition –

The Doctrine of Justification and the Rise of Pluralism

35

regret for having offended God from fear for eternal damnation – was sufficient for sacramental absolution, which ran against the ‘Jansenist’ predilection for contritionism. Jesuits and like-minded clergymen promoted frequent communion and devotion to the Holy Sacrament, which cut against ‘Jansenist’ reluctance to receive frequent communion (Strayer: 2008, 57–59). The ‘Jansenists’ reproached the Jesuits for revitalizing the ancient condemned heresies of Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism, whereas the Jesuits “accused the Jansenists […] of being tainted with the horrors of the Calvinist heresy” (Kolakowski: 1995, 5). When Jansenius’ Augustinus appeared in 1640, exactly on the centennial of the founding of the Jesuits, members of the Order in France and the Low Countries considered it as an outright provocation. They cited Paul V’s decree of 1625 forbidding anyone to write about grace and free will, and charged the book of resuscitating the condemned propositions of Michael Baius. As a consequence, Pope Urban VIII prohibited the Augustinus by the bull In eminenti Ecclesiae militantis, dated 6 March 1642, but only published in 1643 (Cottret: 2016, 15–28; Strayer: 2008, 59–61, 67; also Quilliet: 2007, 449). The bull, however, did not have an immediate resonance, and Jansenius’ ideas spread rapidly, especially in France and the Low Countries. In France, the leader of the ‘Jansenist’ movement Antoine Arnauld (1612–1694), member of the theological Faculty in Paris released in 1643 his doctoral dissertation On Frequent Communion. ‘Jansenism’ also prospered in the (model) abbey of Port Royal, led by Mère Angélique Arnauld, the sister of Antoine Arnauld. Another protagonist was Jean Duvergier de Hauranne, also called ‘the Abbot of Saint-Cyran’, who was an ascetic, spiritual director of Port-Royal, and leader of a party opposing the ‘worldly’ Cardinal de Richelieu. In the Low Countries, the universities of Louvain and Douai were strongholds of Jansenism, and the secular clergy adhered – more or less – to its viewpoints, particularly in the Dutch Republic where Jansenius’ ideas were considered a means to compete with Calvinism (Cottret: 2016, 29–43; Strayer: 2008, 61–62, 67; also Quilliet: 2007, 435–449). Further instigation of the Jesuits led Pope Innocent X to issue the bull Cum Occasione in 1653, which condemned five propositions said to be taken from Jansenius’ Augustinus, primarily targeting the denial that Christ died for all people and the concomitant refutation of sufficient grace, as well as the strong positions concerning efficacious grace, which man was said not to be able to resist (Strayer: 2008, 68–69; Quaghebeur: 2005, 130–151; Kolakowski: 1995, 3–25; Ceyssens: 1980, 368–424; also Quilliet: 2007, 451–453). Antoine Arnauld and the ‘Jansenists’ in France (and the Low Countries) agreed that the Pope had the right to condemn the five propositions since they smacked of heresy (“question de droit”), but they argued that in fact none of the five could be found in Jansenius’ Augustinus (“question de fait”). Given the ‘mistakes’ Rome had made in this dossier, the ‘Jansenists’ also questioned the

36

Wim François/Antonio Gerace

Pope’s double claim to inspiration by the Spirit and infallibility, which they argued did not extend to matters of fact (Cottret: 2016, 53–56; Strayer: 2008, 70– 71; also Quilliet: 2007, 453–455). Another foreman of French Jansenism, Blaise Pascal (1623–1662), published in 1656–1657 the Lettres écrites à un Provincial “Les Provinciales”, in which he ridiculed the laxity of the Jesuits (Cottret: 2016, 63–66). In March 1656, Blaise Pascal’s niece was miraculously cured of cancer after being touched by a thorn allegedly taken from Christ’s crown of thorns worn on the cross. In the ensuing months, eighty more sufferers reported being healed by the “Miracle of the Thorn”. This helped to save the ‘Jansenist’ cause in 1656 just as the tidal wave of persecution seemed about to crush it. “Jansenists saw the ‘Miracle of the Thorn’ as proof positive that they had the truth and that God was with them and not with the Jesuits” (Cottret: 2016, 70–76; Strayer: 2008, 72–73 [quotation]; also Quilliet: 2007, 455–473). By the end of the seventeenth century, as Robert Kreiser (1978, 72) has stated, “The expectation of miracles and other supernatural signs had become almost an integral part of the ‘Jansenist’ worldview.” In France and the Low Countries the Jesuits and their allies declared, however, that the Augustinus did contain the five condemned propositions. On 7 November 1656, after only a six weeks’ deliberation, Pope Alexander VII issued the bull Ad sacram. Like Innocent X’s Cum occasione four years earlier, Ad sacram condemned the five propositions “in the sense Jansenius has meant them” and affirmed that they could indeed be found in his Augustinus. The implication was that the aforementioned distinction between “right” and “fact” was declared meaningless (Cottret: 2016, 67–70; Strayer: 2008, 71; also Quilliet: 2007, 474). As a reaction, Antoine Arnauld and his co-religionists decided to observe a “silence respectueux” or “respectful silence”. In response, the French Assembly of the Clergy of the following year (1657) drew up a Formulaire that contained a profession of faith conformable to Ad sacram and made subscription to it obligatory. But again, the issue of whether the bull had to be unconditionally accepted, and the formulary signed was subject to vehement debate (Cottret: 2016, 84–87; Strayer: 2008, 73). On 15 February 1665, Alexander VII released another bull entitled Regiminis apostolici. Like Cum occasione (1653) and Ad sacram (1656), it condemned the five propositions in Jansenius’ Augustinus and declared the question of “right” and “fact” meaningless. Moreover, it approved the obligation of all clergy to subscribe to the anti-Jansenist Formulaire (Strayer: 2008, 73; also Quilliet: 2007, 479). However, the new Pope Clement IX was able to settle the discussion in the years 1667–1669, by imposing a compromise. It was accepted that recalcitrant bishops and clergy could subscribe to the Formulaire “pure and simple” as opposed to subscribing to it “sincerely”. It was enough to accept the con-

The Doctrine of Justification and the Rise of Pluralism

37

demnation of the five propositions as “quaestio juris”. A “respectful silence” about the “quaestio facti” was accepted. This settlement led to the Pax Clementina or Clementine Peace, which lasted for about thirty years (Cottret: 2016, 107–123; also Quilliet: 2007, 481–498). Enjoying the Pax Clementina, the influence of Jansenism began to spread widely, both within France and abroad. Blaise Pascal published his Pensées (first edition 1669), which emphasized the need for faith, a gift of God, as well as reason, which was an answer to ascendant rationalism. Pasquier Quesnel (1634– 1719), collaborator with Antoine Arnauld and his de facto successor as leader of the ‘Jansenist faction’, published his Réflexions morales sur le Nouveau Testament (first edition 1671). It gave proof of the Jansenists’ desire to base theology and moral life upon the teachings contained in the Scriptures, which they considered to be made available for everybody in the vulgar tongues. The book became more outspokenly ‘Jansenist’ with every new edition – as the ‘Jansenists’ regained confidence under the continuing Pax Clementina – and the book eventually received the approval of Archbishop Louis Antoine de Noailles of Paris (June 1695) (Cottret: 2016, 128–134; also Quilliet: 2007, 499–509). It was Clement XI, however, who brought an end to the Clementine Peace with his bull Vineam Domini of 1705: he declared that “respectful silence” was not enough and required denial in word and conscience of the five propositions which, he maintained, were part of Jansenius’ teachings. Since the nuns of PortRoyal only gave qualified assents to the papal condemnations, Louis XIVordered the Port-Royal abbey to be abolished and its buildings razed in 1708–1711 (Cottret: 2016, 138–141; also Quilliet: 2007, 509–512). With the consent of the King, Clement XI condemned with the bull Unigenitus Dei Filius of 1713, 101 propositions taken from the Réflexions morales of Pasquier Quesnel, including the proposition that the Bible could be read by all and sundry. The condemnation was also a blow to Louis Antoine de Noailles, by then elevated to the Cardinalate. Several bishops and clerics in the Low Countries and France, but also elsewhere, appealed against the bull to a future general council, again calling into question papal infallibility. Submission to the bull was often required under constraint, and more than before anti-Jansenism was the main criterion for promotion in the Church. Those who defended the dogmatic character of Unigenitus were called Ultramontanists. They defended not only papal infallibility, but also the immediate jurisdiction of the Pope over the whole Church and the subordination of civil power under spiritual. ‘Jansenists’, for their part, were inclined to defend the independence of the local viz. national Churches under their bishops, a position that was already to be found in Jansenius’ works but which only grew stronger as the ‘Jansenists’ reproached the papacy for having made ‘contested’ decisions, to put it mildly (Cottret: 2016, 151– 155; also Quilliet: 2007, 512–523).

38

Wim François/Antonio Gerace

‘Jansenist’ convictions as well as the wish to uphold independence vis-à-vis Rome, eventually led to a – not unimportant – schism in the Catholic Church. After the vicar apostolic of the Holland Mission, Petrus Codde, was dismissed by Rome, precisely because of ‘Jansenist’ ideas, a considerable part of the Catholic diocesan clergy in the Dutch Republic refused to accept his successor, appointed by Rome. Instead, the chapter of Utrecht decided in 1723 to elect a ‘Jansenistminded’ archbishop, Cornelis Steenoven, also tying in with the full institutional organization of the Catholic Church in the Low Countries as it existed before the Reformation. The clash with the Roman center not only related to doctrine, but also had an ecclesiological aspect, since it ran against Rome’s will to administer the Holland Mission directly, with the Jesuits as its most important agents. The clash lies at the basis of the independent Church of Utrecht, a schism that lasts up till today (Schoon: 2011; Berlis: 2000; also Quilliet: 2007, 546–547).

Conclusion When the reformers made the doctrines of grace and free will the core of the new faith, they started a debate that gave rise to a plurality of insights and launched a controversy not only between Catholics and Protestants, but also among representatives of various currents within the confessions themselves. Catholic theologians of several schools and religious orders took advantage of the latitude the Council of Trent had given, in order to express themselves on the relation between predestination, grace, and free will. As shown, a strong anti-Pelagian Augustinian school arose in the Low Countries, with Michael de Bay and his friend and colleague John Hessels as the main protagonists. They expressed negative views about the capacity of postlapsarian man to contribute to his salvation, stressing instead the overwhelming need for God’s grace. Baius’ ideas were rejected both by faculties of theology (Alcalá and Salamanca) and by popes (Pius V and Gregory XIII). Like a counterweight, the Jesuit Leonard Lessius stressed the importance of the human contribution to salvation, even maintaining a “praedestinatio ex previsis meritis”. Such ideas were much to the distaste of the Augustinian milieu in Louvain and Douai, whose theological faculties censured Lessius’ Theses theologicae. Other Jesuits preferred to situate themselves within the more traditional ‘center’. Bellarmine for instance stressed the difference between gratia sufficiens and gratia efficax, by means of which God, through Christ’s salvatory death and resurrection, bestows sufficient means to all mankind, opening the possibility to be saved. But this possibility is only actualized by God’s efficacious grace, which efficaciously leads those on whom it is bestowed to salvation. A similar debate also occurred in Spain, where the Dominican Bañez firmly maintained the efficaciousness of God’s grace, even affirming that it is impos-

39

The Doctrine of Justification and the Rise of Pluralism

sible to receive it without converting (working like a “predeterminatio physica”). In contrast, the Jesuit Luis de Molina maintained that it is indeed possible that God’s grace fails, since it is up to human free will to accept or reject it. Moreover, God predestines people “per propria merita”, and these are therefore an instrumental (co-)cause of salvation. Ironically, Molina’s Concordia (1588) effected strong ‘discord’ within the Church. A first Roman congregation de auxiliis was instaured in 1597 by Clement VIII in order to solve the querelle between Dominicans and Jesuits, but after ten years of deliberations, Paul V interrupted the work of the congregations, accepting de facto both views. In some ways, this shows that the two views on God’s grace are an unsolvable antinomy. Radical anti-Pelagian Augustinism continued to attract adherents, especially in the seventeenth-century Low Countries, with important names such as William Hessels van Est (Estius), Cornelius Jansenius ‘of Ypres’, father of so-called ‘Jansenism’, and others. In France ‘Jansenism’ was embraced by men such as Antoine Arnauld, Blaise Pascal, and Pasquier Quesnel, and especially took hold in the monastery of Port-Royal. Once again the efficaciousness of God’s grace was stressed, to the detriment of man’s free will. ‘Jansenist’ views were considered to be outside mainstream Catholic ‘interpretation’, and several popes showed their disapproval, instigated to that aim by several members of the Jesuit Order. Using the scheme from Michael D. Torre’s monograph on the Spanish Dominican Francisco Marín Sola (1873–1932) as a basis, we can show the main differences between Molina, Bellarmine, Juan González de Albeda,15 Bañez, and Jansenius regarding the relation between predestination, grace and free will (Torre: 2009, 191): Jesuits

Molina: all grace is versatile and sufficient Bellarmine: grace is sufficient and efficacious

Scientia media accepted Physical premotion rejected

Dominicans De Albeda: grace is sufficient and Scientia media rejected efficacious Bañez: God’s grace is infallibly effi- Physical premotion accepted (catcacious (category of sufficient grace egory of free will is eroded) is eroded) Augustinists Jansenius: God’s grace is intrinsically efficacious

Human will cannot resist divine grace (restrained use of scholastic categories)

In short, the question on predestination, grace and free will was debated for several decades and even centuries in the wake of the Council of Trent. What in 15 Juan González de Albeda (1569–1622) was a Spanish Dominican who commented on Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae, a commentary that was first pubished in Alcalá in 1621. His views on grace and free will mainly influenced the French Thomists.

40

Wim François/Antonio Gerace

an optimistic view may be characterized as theological pluralism, was at times a hard and bitter controversy which was accompanied by mutual censorships, denouncements and condemnations. It ultimately led to the most important schism in the Catholic Church after the Reformation, the schism of Utrecht in 1723. Of course, similar processes on the Reformed side could undoubtedly be recalled to our memory. This leads us to the observation that views regarding predestination, grace, and free will were based upon underlying anthropological intuitions that transcended the confessions. These gave rise to objective similarities across the confessions/denominations. Positive, humanist views on man’s capacities, even after the Fall, and the belief that man could be educated as a virtuous person, were upheld by Jesuits (and their theological allies) on the Catholic side, and by the Arminians on the Protestant side. Far more negative views of man’s capacity or preparedness to do good were maintained by strict Augustinian-minded theologians, such as the Jansenists on the Catholic side and orthodox Calvinists on the Protestant side. Time and again the question has been asked how these far-fetched – and for contemporary readers often irritantingly hair-splitting – reflections and controversies contributed to the rise of skepticism and rationalism, a development that would soon dominate Europe’s intellectual atmosphere.

Bibliography Primary Sources Augustinus, Aurelius (1962), De predestinatione sanctorum, J. Chéné/J. Pintard (ed.), Bibliothèque augustinienne 24, Paris: Desclée de Brouwer. Augustinus, Aurelius (1970), De diversis quaestionibus ad Simplicianum, Almut Mutzenbecher (ed.), CC SL 44, Brepols: Turnhout. Baius, Michael (1563), De libero hominis arbitrio, ejusque potestate…, Leuven: Petrus Zangrius Tiletanus. Baius, Michael (1565), De meritis operum libri duo: de prima hominis justicia & virtutibus impiorum…, Leuven: Johannes Bogardus. Baius, Michael (1696), Opera: Cum Bullis Pontificum et aliis ipsius causam spectantibus … opuscula aucta, Cologne: Balthasar von Egmondt, 1696. Bañez, Domingo (1584), Scholastica commentaria in primam partem angelici doctoris d. Thomae, Salamanca: Matías Gast. Bellarmine, Robert (1593), Disputationum de controversiis Christianae fidei tomus tertius, Ingolstadt: David Sartorius. Bellarmine, Robert (1588), Disputationum de controversiis Christianae fidei tomus primus, Ingolstadt: David Sartorius.

The Doctrine of Justification and the Rise of Pluralism

41

Censvræ facultatum (1641), Censvræ facultatum sacræ theologiæ Lovaniensis ac Duacensis super quibusdam articulis de Sacra Scriptura, gratia & praedestinatione, Paris: s.n. Jansenius, Cornelius (1640), Augustinus, Leuven: Jacob Zegers. Lessius, Leonard (1610), De gratia efficaci disputatio apologetica, Antwerp: Johannes Moretus. Molina, Luis de (1595), Concordia liberi arbitrii cum gratiae donis, divina praescientia, providentia, praedestinatione et reprobatione, Antwerp: Ioachim Trognaesius. Molina, Luis de (1588), Concordia liberi arbitrii cum gratiae donis, divina praescientia, providentia, praedestinatione et reprobatione, Lisbon: Antonius Riberius. Steyaert, Martinus (1742), Opuscula, Leuven: Martinus Van Overbeke. Tanner, Norman P./Giuseppe Alberigo (1990), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Washington: Georgetown University Press.

Secondary Literature Aichele, Alexander (2014), The Real Possibility of Freedom: Luis De Molina’s Theory of Absolute Willpower in Concordia I, in: Matthias Kaufmann/Alexander Aichele (ed.), A Companion to Luis de Molina, Leiden: Brill, 3–54. Anfray, Jean-Pascal (2014), Molina and Duns Scotus, in: Matthias Kaufmann/ Alexander Aichele (ed.), A Companion to Luis de Molina, Leiden: Brill, 325–364. Backus, Irena/Goudriaan, Aza (2014), ‘Semipelagianism’: The Origins of the Term and its Passage into the History of Heresy, JEH 65, 25–46. Beltrán de Heredia, José (1968), Domingo Bañez y las controversias sobre la gracia: textos y documentos, Salamanca: Apartado. Berlis, Angela et al. (2000), De Oud-Katholieke Kerk van Nederland. Leer en leven, Zoetermeer, 2000. [Bernard, P.] (1926), Lessius Leonard, DThC 9, 453–454. Biersack, Manfred (1994), Bellarmin und die “Causa Baii”, in: Mathijs Lamberigts/Leo Kenis (ed.), L’Augustinisme à l’ancienne Faculté de théologie de Louvain, Leuven: Peeters, 167–178. Boute, Bruno (2010), Academic Interests and Catholic Confessionalisation: The Louvain Privileges of Nomination to Ecclesiastical Benefices, Leiden: Brill. Brodrick, James (1961), Robert Bellarmine, Saint and Scholar, London: Burns & Oates. Broggio, Paolo (2009), La teologia e la politica: controversie dottrinali, Curia romana e monarchia spagnola tra Cinque e Seicento, Florence: Leo S. Olschki. Cai, Yilun (2014), Robert Bellarmine’s Theology of Pure Nature in the Commentary on Summa Theologiae, Doctoral Dissertation KU Leuven, Leuven: Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies. Cai, Yilun (2012), The Efficacy of Grace according to Domingo Bañez, Augustiniana 62, 291–326. Cai, Yilun (2010), The Efficacy of Grace in Domingo Báñez’s Theology of Grace, Master Thesis KU Leuven, Leuven: Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies.

42

Wim François/Antonio Gerace

Ceyssens, Lucien (1994), Bellarmin et Louvain (1569–1576), in: Mathijs Lamberigts/Leo Kenis (ed.), L’Augustinisme à l’ancienne Faculté de théologie de Louvain, Leuven: Peeters, 179–205. Ceyssens, Lucien (1993), Que penser finalement de l’histoire du jansénisme et de l’antijansénisme? RHE 88, 108–130. Ceyssens, Lucien (1989), Jansénius d’Ypres (1585–1638), Paris. Ceyssens, Lucien (1980), L’authenticité des cinq propositions condamnées de Jansénius, Antonianum 55, 368–424. Ceyssens, Lucien (1977), Les débuts du jansénisme et de l’antijansénisme à Louvain, in: Edmond J.M. van Eijl (ed.), Facultas S. Theologiae Lovaniensis 1432–1797. Bijdragen tot haar geschiedenis. Contributions to its History. Contributions à son histoire, Leuven: Leuven University Press, 381–431. Cottret, Monique (2016), Histoire du jansénisme, Paris: Perrin. Cruz Cruz, Juan (2014), Predestination as Transcendent Theology: Molina and the first Molinism, in: Matthias Kaufmann/Alexander Aichele (ed.), A Companion to Luis de Molina, Leiden: Brill, 83–121. Dekker, Eef (1995), The Reception of Scotus’ Theory of Contingency in Molina and Suárez, in: Leonardo Sileo (ed.), Via Scoti: Methodologica ad mentem Joannis Duns Scoti. Atti del congresso Scotistico internazionale, Roma, 9–11 marzo 1993, Rome: Edizioni Antonianum, 445–455. Doyle, William (2000), Jansenism: Catholic Resistance to Authority from the Reformation to the French Revolution, New York: St. Martin’s Press. Duffy, Stephen J. (1993), The Dynamics of Grace: Perspectives in Theological Anthropology, Collegeville: A Michael Glazier Book/The Liturgical Press. Fleischmann, Alfons (1940), Die Gnadenlehre des Wilhelm Estius und ihre Stellung zum Bajanismus: Eine dogmengeschichtliche Untersuchung zu den Gnadenstreitigkeiten des ausgehenden 16. Jahrhunderts, Kallmünz über Regensburg: Laßleben. François, Wim (2014), Efficacious Grace and Predestination in the Bible Commentaries of Estius, Jansenius and Fromondus, in: Dominik Burkard/Tanja Thanner (ed.), Der Jansenismus – eine “katholische Häresie”? Das Ringen um Gnade, Rechtfertigung und die Autorität Augustins in der frühen Neuzeit, Münster: Aschendorff Verlag, 117–143. Freddoso, Alfred J. (1988), On the Divine Foreknowledge (part IV of the Concordia), Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Gaskin, Richard (1950), Conditionals of Freedom and Middle Knowledge, The Philosophical Quarterly 43, 412–430. Gerace, Antonio (2016), Luis de Molina’s ‘middle knowledge’: Thomas Stapleton’s ‘antidote’ to John Calvin, Reformation and Renaissance Review 18, 105–122. Grossi, Vittorino (1968), Baio e Bellarmino interpreti di S. Agostino nelle questioni del Soprannaturale, Rome: Studium Theologicum Augustinianum. Hersche, Peter (1977), Der Spätjansenismus in Österreich, Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Kolakowski, Leszek (1995), God Owes us Nothing: A Brief Remark on Pascal’s Religion and on the Spirit of Jansenism, Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press, 1995. Kaufmann, Matthias/Aichele, Alexander (2014), A Companion to Luis de Molina, Leiden: Brill.

The Doctrine of Justification and the Rise of Pluralism

43

Kreiser, Robert B. (1978), Miracles, Convulsions, and Ecclesiastical Politics in Early Eighteenth-century Paris, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Le Bachelet, Xavier-Marie (1931), Prédestination et grâce efficace: controverses dans la Compagnie de Jésus au temps d’Aquaviva 1610–1613: histoire et documents inédits, Leuven: Museum Lessianum. Lehmann, Karl (1989), Das Dekret des Konzils von Trient über die Rechtfertigung: Historisches Verständnis und theologische Bedeutung in ökumenischer Sicht. Bibliographie, in: Karl Lehman (ed.), Lehrverurteilungen-kirchentrennend?, vol. 2: Materialen zu den Lehrverurteilungen und zur Theologie der Rechtfertigung, Freiburg i.Br.: Herder/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 368–372. Leppin, Volker (2013), Spätmittelalterliche Theologie und biblische Korrektur im Rechtfertigungsdekret von Trient, in: Peter Walter/Günther Wassilowsky (ed.), Das Konzil von Trient und die katholische Konfessionskultur (1563–2013). Wissenschaftliches Symposium aus Anlass des 450. Jahrestages des Abschlusses des Konzils von Trient, Freiburg i.Br. 18. – 21. September 2013, Münster: Aschendorff Verlag, 167–183. Matava, Robert J. (2016), Divine Causality and Human Free Choice, Leiden: Brill. McGrath, Alister E. (1998), Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, 2nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Motta, Franco (2005), Bellarmino: Una teologia politica della Controriforma, Brescia: Morcelliana. Oakes, Edward T. (2016), A Theology of Grace in Six Controversies, Grand Rapids: William Eerdmans Publishing Company. O’Connor, Thomas (2012), Jansenism, in: William Doyle (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Ancien Régime, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 318–336. O’Malley, John W. (2013), Trent: What Happened at the Council, Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Orcibal, Jean (1989), Jansénius d’Ypres (1585–1638), Paris: Études augustiniennes. Orcibal, Jean (1977), Un grand universitaire malgré lui: C. Jansénius d’Ypres, in: Edmond J.M. van Eijl (ed.), Facultas S. Theologiae Lovaniensis 1432–1797. Bijdragen tot haar geschiedenis. Contributions to its History. Contributions à son histoire, Leuven: Leuven University Press, 351–380. Peroutka, David (2010), Imagination, Intellect and Premotion. A Psychological Theory of Domingo Báñez, Studia Neoaristotelica 7, 107–115. Perszyk, Ken (2011), Molinism. The Contemporary Debate, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Quaghebeur, Toon (2005), La condamnation des Cinq Propositions selon les archives du Saint-Office, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 81, 130–151. Quaghebeur, Toon (2003), «Sed illud intactum reliquerit». Une virgule mal biffée: le comma pianum, la bulle ex omnibus afflictionibus du St-Office et la lecture du cardinal de Lugo, RHE 43, 61–79. Quilliet, Bernard (2007), L’acharnement théologique. Histoire de la grâce en Occident, Paris: Fayard. Rai, Eleonora (2016), Between Augustine and Pelagius: Leonard Lessius in the Leuven Controversies, from 1587 to the 20th century, Journal of Baroque Studies 4, 79–106. Richgels, Robert W. (1980), The Pattern of Controversy in a Counter-Reformation Classic: The Controversies of Robert Bellarmine, SCJ 11, 3–15.

44

Wim François/Antonio Gerace

Roegiers, Jan (2012), Awkward Neighbours: The Leuven Faculty of Theology and the Jesuit College (1542–1773), in: Rob Faesen/Leo Kenis (ed.), The Jesuits of the Low Countries: Identity and Impact (1540–1773). Proceedings of the International Congress at the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, KU Leuven (3–5 December 2009), Leuven: Peeters, 153–175. Roegiers, Jan (2003), Le Jansénisme de Louvain à la fin du XVIIe siècle, in: Guido Cooman/Maurice van Stiphout/Bart Wauters (ed.), Zeger-Bernard van Espen at the Crossroads of Canon Law, History, Theology and Church-State Relations, Leuven: Peeters, 1–17. Schelkens, Karim/Gielis, Marcel (2007), From Driedo to Bellarmine. The Concept of Pure Nature in the 16th Century, Augustiniana 57, 425–448. Schoon, Dirk-Jan (2011), Wegwijs in de oud-katholieke kerk, Sliedrecht: Merweboek. Sellier, Philippe (2012), Qu’est-ce que le jansénisme (1640–1713)?, in: Port-Royal et la littérature, vol. 2, Le siècle de Saint Augustin, La Rochefoucauld, Mme de Lafayette, Sacy, Racine, 2nd ed., Paris: Champion, 55–99. Soen, Violet (2007), Geen Pardon zonder Paus! Studie over de complementariteit van het koninklijk en pauselijk generaal pardon (1570–1574) en over inquisiteur-generaal Michael Baius (1560–1576), Brussels: KVAB, 2007. Spiertz, Mathieu G. (1992), Jansenisme in en rond de Nederlanden 1640–1690, Trajecta 1, 144–167. Strayer, Brian E. (2008), Suffering Saints: Jansensists and Convulsionnaires in France, 1640–1799, Eastbourne: Sussex Academic Press. Stucco, Guido (2014), The Catholic Doctrine of Predestination from Luther to Jansenius, Bloomington: Xlibris. Torre, Michael D. (2009), God’s Permission of Sin: Negative or Conditioned Decree? A Defense of the Doctrine of Francisco Marin-Sola, O.P., Based on the Principles of Thomas Aquinas, Fribourg: Academic Press. Van Eijl, Edmond J.M. (1994), La controverse louvaniste autour de la grâce et du libre arbitre à la fin du XVIe siècle, in: Mathijs Lamberigts/Leo Kenis (ed.), L’Augustinisme à l’ancienne Faculté de théologie de Louvain, Leuven: Peeters, 207–282. Van Eijl, Edmond J.M. (1958), Der Bajanismus und die Minderbrüder in den Niederlanden, 1550–1590, FS 40, 227–238. Van Eijl, Edmond J.M. (1955), L’interprétation de la bulle de Pie V portant condamnation de Baius, RHE 50, 499–542. Van Eijl, Edmond J.M. (1953), Les censures des Universités d’Alcalá et de Salamanque et la censure du pape Pie V contre Michel Baius (1565–1567), RHE 48, 719–776. Van Kley, Dale K. (1996), The Religious Origins of the French Revolution: From Calvin to the Civil Constitution, 1560–1791, New Haven: Yale University Press. Vanneste, Alfred (1977), Nature et grâce dans la théologie de Baius, in: Edmond J.M. van Eijl (ed.), Facultas S. Theologiae Lovaniensis 1432–1797. Bijdragen tot haar geschiedenis. Contributions to its History. Contributions à son histoire, Leuven: Leuven University Press, 327–350. Vanneste, Alfred (1994), Le «De prima hominis justitia» de M. Baius: une relecture critique, in: Mathijs Lamberigts/Leo Kenis (ed.), L’Augustinisme à l’ancienne Faculté de théologie de Louvain, Leuven: Peeters, 123–166.

Siegrid Westphal

The Reform of Marriage and the “Reformed Marriage”

1.

Introduction

It is one of the recognised core statements arising from the historical research done on the Reformation, that the Reformation had a lasting influence on gender relationship (cf. Westphal: 2016; Conrad: 2016). The topic of marriage is a particular focus of interest in this case because it is assumed that the structure it took was altered or renewed completely. Although a clearly defined doctrine on marriage is not actually being spoken about in this case, yet there are – according to the common consensus – topics in relation to numerous individual aspects in reaction to concrete problem areas that have been broached. These range from legal questions in relation to marriage, to the structuring of the relationship between man and woman within marriage, and through to the theological and social importance of marriage. This made a significant contribution to the internal differentiation of the Christian confessions. At the same time, research regarding this internal differentiation and the question of the confessional position’s independence appears to be utterly disparate. This is why the lecture asks how Luther’s and Calvin’s positions on marriage were related to each other and therefore considers their core statements on this topic. Did the discussion about the question of marriage based on the specific Genevese framework conditions actually give rise to a Reformed doctrine of marriage? Or can no significant differences between the two reformers be determined? And to what basis can the differences and/or the similarities between both be traced back to? Initially, the various explanation approaches taken by historical research will be demonstrated before the framework conditions will be explained. Finally, using the comparison of the interpretation of the sixth or seventh commandment of the catechism, the specific Reformed idea of what marriage is and entails will be discussed.

46

2.

Siegrid Westphal

State of Research

The question regarding a specific profile or the individual character of Calvin’s theology remains one of the most debated topics in Calvin-related research right up until the present day. Consensus only actually exists in relation to the “Rejection of the predestination doctrine as the central doctrine of Calvin’s theology”, as Christoph Strohm postulated (Strohm: 2009, 82). In order to get beyond the speculative and confessionally shaped positions, he recommended the consistent historical contextualisation of Calvin’s theology (cf. Strohm: 2009, 82). It is only in this way that the danger of projecting back an inner-Protestant demarcation of later eras in a non-historic fashion can be avoided. Calvin’s importance for the reform of marriage during the time of the Reformation has been subject to controversial interpretations, too, though the topic was not the focus of his interest. While John Witte Jr. most recently referred in the Calvin Handbook that Calvin developed a “comprehensive new theology” and a set of laws that “made marriage and divorce, the upbringing and well-being of children, family cohesion and family support, sexual crimes and other capital crimes a significant topic for the church and state” (Witte: 2008a, 449), Michael Parsons determined when looking at the concept of marriage, that Luther and Calvin “in all significant points […] agree” (Parsons: 2005, 334). Similarly, contradictory statements exist with respect to the standardisation of marriage relationships, as well as the practice of moral discipline and the administration of marriage law. While John Witte Jr. recognises a specific Reformed position particularly in these areas, other historians who have studied the Reformed marital and moral discipline within the social practice, point out that they could hardly recognise any differences when compared with Lutheran territories. Thus, in 2008, Heinrich Richard Schmidt stated: “The close interlocking of Reformed religion, its strict discipline, and the ecclesial self-discipline of its dynamic household shall not create the impression of being typically Reformed. Studies about Lutheran Württemberg show broad conformity” (Schmidt: 2008, 322).1 Even before Schmidt, Heinz Schilling declared this in reference to the formation and regulation of marriage: There were no significant differences between both Protestant confessions (cf. Schilling: 1993, 199). Schilling represents the tradition of confessionalisation-scholarship and consequently emphasizes the functional equality of this fundamental process within a society as a whole, 1 “[…] die enge Verzahnung von reformierter Religion, ihrer strengen Disziplin und ihrer kirchgemeindlichen Selbstzucht mit einem dynamischen Hauskonzept darf nicht den Eindruck erwecken, als sei das typisch reformiert. Studien zum lutherischen Württemberg zeigen eine erstaunliche Übereinstimmung […]”.

The Reform of Marriage and the “Reformed Marriage”

47

which can be seen to be in close contact to the process of territorial-statesformation. From this point of view, the confessionalisation resulted in broad changes, both in public as well as in private life. All three confessions displayed a functional equality, which should conduce the right religious belief, the unification of the association of subjects, and the instruction of secular as well as clerical staff. The household, marriage, and the family were part of this as well. The aim was the regulation of the subjects to religious and ethical standards of the respective confessional ideology, which should become the standards for society as a whole as well. This would have led to an evolvement of specific political and cultural identities within the individual territories. Besides the group that does not recognise any particular difference between the two confessions regarding their marriage doctrines, and the group that sees in Calvin an innovator and independent shaper of marriage theology, also a third party exists. They argue that developments – which took place within the society of the late Middle Ages – are assumed to be the significant starting point for the reform of marriage. The polyvalence of the evaluations of married life is elementally combined with the socio-cultural consolidation process of the urban bourgeoisie. This is supposed to have already led to the upgrade of marriage over the course of the fifteenth century. Humanists such as Erasmus or the Franconian canon Albrecht von Eyb would have already propagated a creation-theological affirmation of marriage (cf. Kaufmann: 2008, 285). But it was not only the prevention of fornication or procreation and the raising of children, but also the emotional quality of marriage that was supposedly advocated with great commitment. This did not, however, abolish the duality of the order and life patterns, as well as the “traditional hierarchy of values of celibate and married life” (Kaufmann: 2008, 286). The ascetic-based condemnation of sexuality, as well as the ideal of humanistic scholars would have stood in opposition to this revaluation. And finally, a fourth group exists which has only been more strongly emphasised in recent times and has been brought into connection with the terms territorialisation and nation building in the pre-Reformation period. According to this approach, it is said that an array of profane territorial lords were already successful prior to the Reformation in establishing a territorial church regime within the framework of the church structures of the late Middle Ages. The fight against the irregularities and abuses within the church was regarded as the task of profane Electoral Princes, based on the new right of territorial sovereignty. As a consequence of the fact that the clerical powers were not able to effectively sanction the misconduct of the subjects, the profane lords saw themselves as being entitled to take responsibility for the compliance with church laws under the threat of punishment (cf. Bünz/Volkmar: 2005, 91). The respective jurisprudence is also supposed to have existed prior to the Reformation that was

48

Siegrid Westphal

said to have been used as an argumentation pattern with which the influence of the territorial lords over the church was justified. It was the ecclesiastical jurisdiction in particular, which was responsible for the handling of questions in relation to marriage that many territorial lords regarded as an impairment on their ruling powers, and it was for this reason that its powers should be at least limited, if not even completely pushed back. If these diverse explanation patterns are summarised, it then shows that the question of a specific Reformed marriage is a matter of perspective. What would appear to be decisive is indeed a consistent historical contextualisation. This must involve a differentiation between pre-Reformation and Reformation developments, as well as the process of the confessionalisation. When looking at the pre-Reformation developments, the first thing to do is to look at the lines of continuity to the theological and humanistic teachings on marriage in the time prior to the Reformation. Secondly, the social and economic changes that took place in the cities of the late Middle Ages need to be taken into account, in whose wake an appreciation of the value of marriage had already happened prior to the Reformation. Thirdly, the process of territorialisation in the profane domain has to be incorporated. Here it had already come to an appropriation of marriagerelated competencies on the part of the lords, even before the Reformation. Just as Thomas Kaufmann has stated for the poor relief, one can say for the fields of marriage and marriage right that social developments and authoritarian interests of the pre-Reformation era were legitimated by the theological doctrines of the Reformation era. The developments which took place after the Reformation, which need to be considered from the perspective of the confessionalisation paradigm, have to be differentiated from this on the other hand. Yet these post-Reformation developments are very similar across the Roman Catholic, the Lutheran, and the Reformed church in the sense of practices and mechanisms. If one now asks about a specific Reformed marriage doctrine, then this means that the theological ideas and statements of the reformers need to be concentrated on.

3.

Framework Conditions

Reforming the doctrine on marriage or marriage law was not a focus for either Luther or for Calvin. Both were predominantly interested in reforming the church. It is for this reason that there is no self-contained Lutheran or Calvinistic anthropology or marriage doctrine. It is conspicuous, however, with which intensity and at what point in time they engaged with the topic, what priorities they set while doing so, and which lines of continuity they followed.

The Reform of Marriage and the “Reformed Marriage”

3.1

49

Intensity

Over a long period of time, Martin Luther wrote a series of texts on marriage predominantly in German, which were generally aimed at a wide audience and due to their pastoral and advice-giving character, they also reflected the changing positions (cf. Witt: 2017). Calvin never wrote any texts specifically on marriage theology, but did address the subject in sermons, commentaries and letters, as well as in the Institutio Christianae Religionis within the framework of the ten commandments (cf. Sewell: 2011, 151–164).

3.2

Point in Time

Martin Luther already started to engage with the topic of the status of marriage as early as 1519, in other words, at a point in time when he was not yet married and regarded himself still as a monk. The essential marriage text, the sermon “Vom ehelichen Leben” (On marital life), was written in 1522 and, in addition to the topic of the nature of marriage, it also addressed issues such as barriers to marriage and divorce (cf. Witt: 2014, 195–203). From that time onward until his death, Luther continuously engaged with these topics because he received numerous enquiries and requests in relation to both marriage and marriage law. It would appear that Calvin only in the final twelve years of his life, 1552–1564, engaged more intensively with an independent reform of marriage theology, however, this did remain fragmented (cf. Witte: 2008b, 93f).

3.3

Priorities

The trigger that led Luther to engage with the topic of marriage entailed two aspects, which resulted from the consistent use of the doctrine of justification, on the one hand the question of good deeds, on the other the sacramental theology. The sacramental character of marriage, symbolised by the principle of the indissoluble marriage, was removed (cf. Witt: 2014, 201). This is what motivated Luther to describe marriage as a “worldly thing” and assigned the responsibility for marriage matters to the secular lords and leaders. He therefore rejected the jurisdiction of the old church when it came to issues relating to marriage, as well as the validity of the canonical marriage law. Based on these premises, Luther reversed the ranking of the estates. The celibate life was no longer extolled as the righteous and godly way of life, but marriage increasingly became regarded as the only godly way to live (cf. Witt: 2014, 200). And this was reflected by the status moving ever more into the focus of

50

Siegrid Westphal

his doctrine. It had the effect that the importance of marriage increased compared to the marriage doctrines that had been propagated up until that time. In a traditional sense, Luther also regarded marriage as a means of avoiding fornication. Central to his thinking was, however, Gen 1:28, which he did not interpret as one of many commandments, but as a part of the divine order of creation (cf. Witt: 2014, 197). For him, the reproductive instinct had a far greater importance than all other human needs. Sexual intercourse is taken out of the realm of sin because marriage and procreation are part of God’s order of creation and the natural order of things per Luther, and already existed before the “fall from grace” in the Garden of Eden. The instincts endowed by the creator may not be suppressed for that reason, this would otherwise ultimately lead only to sin. Therefore, the instincts need to be allowed and lived out, and the place to do this for Luther was within marriage (cf. Witt: 2014, 198). In the case of Jean Calvin’s reformation of marriage theology, two phases are differentiated between. In the first half of his work, he remained within the tradition of the marriage doctrines of Luther (cf. Witte: 2008b, 97). Like him, he assumed that there were two regiments in the worldly realm to which the people were subject. Marriage, family, and sexuality were subject to the secular regiment. Just as was the case with Luther, Calvin also saw marriage as a good and holy order of God that was legitimised by the creation of children, and was to serve the avoidance of fornication and foster the love between man and woman. Marriage was subject to the laws of God, grounded in the Ten Commandments. Like Luther, he also rejected the sacramental character of marriage and celibacy. Calvin equally regarded marriage as being superior to celibacy and criticised the Papal Church with respect to its idea of clerical marriage and a life without marriage. In this case, research cannot recognise any original thoughts by Calvin (cf. Witte: 2008b, 98; Parsons: 2005, 340–352). His engagement with the topic of canonical marriage law was evaluated in a more positive light, and to which he applied himself mainly as a lawyer (cf. Witte: 2008b, 99f). The introduction of a new marriage law for the city of Geneva had precedence. The marriage ordinances introduced in 1545 and 1547 were characteristic of this, as were the ordinances of the church from the years 1541 and 1547. Research recognises in this a remarkable synthesis from the provisions of the old canon law and the reforms of the new worldly law (cf. Witte: 2008b, 93f). It was only as the marital reforms began to meet with increasing opposition in the city of Geneva that Calvin in the last twelve years of his life developed a comprehensive covenant theology on marital and family life, which not only served the purpose of the interdependence of the new legal system, but should also provide the theological basis for it (cf. Witte: 2008b, 94).

The Reform of Marriage and the “Reformed Marriage”

3.4

51

Traditions

Both Luther and Calvin stood in the tradition of the old church. Both referred to church father Augustine (cf. Parsons: 2005, 337). In his famous doctrine on matrimonial property, Augustine assigned marriage three virtues: the first entailed the demand for reciprocal fidelity. The second is the birth to children and bringing them up, which was also defined as the purpose of marriage along with the avoidance of fornication. The third virtue is described as “sacramentum” and this means equating the relationship between the spouses with the relationship of Christ to his church. Accordingly, the man with loving affection should be the superior of the woman and head of the household, just like Christ is head of the church. Calvin was not only influenced by church tradition and Lutheran doctrines, but also by the religious developments within the Swiss Confederation and the Upper German Imperial Cities since 1525, something which was mainly reflected in his ideas in relation to marriage law and the establishment of a judicial system to deal with marital affairs. In a theological sense, it was particularly the reformer Martin Bucer from Strasbourg who was of importance due to significant influence he had exercised on Calvin’s covenant theology (cf. Selderhuis: 1999, 368). Calvin’s idea of marriage as a marital covenant may well also have its roots here.

4.

The Comparative Interpretation of the Sixth/Seventh Commandment “Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery”

Michael Parsons primarily worked out the great closeness of Luther and Calvin with regard to their ideas of marriage on the basis of comparative interpretation of various relevant passages from the Bible. On the one hand, he sees the traditional lines in which both reformers stand as a reason for this. “In a society in crisis and within the Augustinian and medieval tradition of static social structures within God’s ordering, both reformers seek to maintain an ordered status quo” (Parsons: 2005, 341). Because of this, both address “a fixed, temporal inequality within the overall context of divine ordo” (Parsons: 2005, 342). Ultimately, both use the natural law in order to determine the unequal relation between man and woman within a marriage (cf. Parsons: 2005, 343). Since Adam was created first by God and Eve from Adam’s rib, women are defined as dependent on men. The submission of women to men is justified by the fall of man in the Bible (cf. Sewell: 2011, 152). The main principle of inequality between men and women corresponds to the principle of inequality within society.

52

Siegrid Westphal

With regard to marriage, both assume that marriage is good in principle, because it had been arranged by God as part of the order of creation, and cite the teachings of matrimonial property by Augustine to justify marriage (cf. Sewell: 2001, 151). Sexuality is understood by both as part of human nature, which may only be carried out in marriage. With regard to the notion of partnership within the marriage, however, Parsons sees a difference between Luther and Calvin. Luther teaches that a woman is to be seen as a companion and the marriage as a companionship, but in terms of a friendship among unequal individuals. In contrast, Calvin sees in a partnership a means “to safeguard a stable, ordered context in which legitimate procreation can take place” (Parsons: 2005, 348). Yet the unequal relationship of the married couple is moderated by both reformers due to the fact that man and woman are defined as the likeness of God, who are equal in God’s eyes and can equally attain divine grace. Both reformers call on the married couple to love and honour each other. Whereas Luther refers to Christ, Calvin derives his definition of love from the Decalogue and refers to “duty and obligation” (Parsons: 2005, 349). Therefore, the theology of marriage advocated by Luther and Calvin fundamentally coincides in theological cornerstones. However, not only Parsons emphasises that the notion of order is significantly more pronounced by Calvin (Parsons: 2005, 348). It is obvious to focus more strongly on this aspect and to comparatively view the interpretation of the Decalogue that decidedly deals with the moral doctrine, and should therefore serve to maintain order. In particular, the sixth/seventh commandment – “Thou shalt not commit adultery” – is revealing here (cf. Sewell: 2011, 164–167). In his Catechism of 1529, Luther dealt with the Ten Commandments at length (cf. WA 30.I, 123–238). Calvin dealt with this topic in the Institutio, which was published in the Latin language for the first time in 1536 and aimed at educated classes. This first edition was decidedly intended as a catechism, but then experienced multiple revisions, until the original six articles had increased to 80 in 1559 (cf. CO II, 8, 1–59). At the time of the composition of their analysis of the Decalogue, both reformers had already gained initial experiences with the development of a new church organisation and the subsequently arising difficulties. The comparison of texts shows: Luther initially classified the sixth commandment in a greater context and justified it as one of several commandments which should also serve not to cause any harm and shame to others. Therefore, his starting point is the love of neighbour, which forms the basis of the fourth to tenth commandment (cf. WA 30.I, 160). He historically derives adultery from Judaism, but then expands on this in view of the current conditions of the sixth commandment to any kind of

The Reform of Marriage and the “Reformed Marriage”

53

unchastity, “not merely that which is externally forbidden, but also all manner of cause/stimulation and means” (WA 30.I, 161). In addition, one should do everything so that the honour of the neighbour will be protected. Everyone should live chastely, but also help others to do so, too. Calvin initially explains the purpose of the commandment without referring to the love of neighbour aspect. This only takes place in the analysis of the tenth commandment, whereby the aspect “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife” is not taken into account there (cf. CO II, 8, 49). For Calvin, the notion is paramount that God formulated his wish for purity and chastity, and therefore human beings should spend their entire life in discipline and avoid any form of fornication and greed. In particular, adultery has been explicitly forbidden by God, because all greed is aimed at him, and that is why it is particularly abhorrent (cf. CO II, 8, 41). Whereas Luther approaches the divine commandment based on the love of neighbour, Calvin focuses on the commandment in line with purity, and derives the demand for moral discipline from that. In the second step, both reformers address marriage and legitimise it in terms of creation theology. But significant differences with regard to the evaluation of the purposes of marriage and the evaluation of the status become apparent here. Like in his sermon from 1522 “On marital life”, Luther promotes marriage and advocates that it stands above all estates as a wonderful status agreeable to God. God used the status over all others and created human beings as man and woman so “that they stick together, be fruitful, beget, nurture and raise children to honour God” (WA 30.I, 161). The classical purpose of marriage – the procreation and upbringing of children – is paramount for Luther. In contrast, any praise of marriage and the fundamental defence of marriage over the other estates is lacking with Calvin. He soberly states that a person should not merely lead their life in accordance with the order of creation, but a person needs other people. This has been strengthened by the fall of man (cf. CO II, 8, 41). Here, God found a remedy through marriage and sanctified it through his blessing. But at the same time Calvin emphasises that marriage has been created as an expedient against unbridled greed. With that said, he places the subordinate purpose of marriage – namely the avoidance of fornication – foremost, and primarily legitimises marriage as an institution for maintenance of moral order. Not least because he repeatedly emphasises that God demands purity and chastity from humans, and damns them if they practice sexuality outside marriage. As a result, the notion of an angry God regains authority with Calvin. Luther and Calvin agree that sexuality is part of human nature, and the instincts implanted by the Creator may not simply be suppressed, because other-

54

Siegrid Westphal

wise they could lead to sins. That is why the instincts should be allowed, and for Luther and Calvin, the place for this was marriage. As a result, both preach conjugal duty in de facto terms. But Calvin emphasises that it is not only human nature, but also the desire as a consequence of the fall of man which makes marriage among humans a necessity in a twofold manner (cf. CO II, 8, 42). In accordance with this premise, Calvin dealt more intensively with those which God excluded from marriage. Luther already expounded on this at length in 1522 during his sermon, as he dealt with the “threefold circumcised” in connection with the impediments to marriage. In the interpretation of the sixth commandment he also refers to the fact that only few men have been excluded from marriage by God (cf. WA 30.I, 162). He uses this statement – as in his sermon – as an opportunity to vehemently assail the self-chosen celibacy of clerics, monks, and nuns as well as their vows. Even if they abstained from sexuality, they would be rife with evil lust. That is why the vow of chastity is damned by the sixth commandment, and all are encouraged to renounce the unchaste status and enter into marriage (cf. WA 30.I, 162f). In this connection, Luther attributes an important role to the parents and the authorities, who are therefore made responsible to motivate young people to get married and thus to help marriage to regain respect (cf. WA 30.I, 163). Like Luther, Calvin assumes that God bestowed grace on a few to remain celibate (cf. CO II, 8, 43). In principle, he even admits that celibacy is not to be scorned. Everyone should comply with what God has given them out of grace. But anyone who is not intended for celibacy and nevertheless wants to remain celibate argues with God and evades his calling. Even more, he sins and trespasses against God’s order. Only in this context does Calvin initiate the argument that nobody should disdain marriage and declare it to be unnecessary (cf. CO II, 8, 43). However, a criticism of clerics or monks and nuns is lacking with him. He even assumes that some people can live alone for a while. But like Luther, he also asserts that those living in abstinence are not immune to a lack of discipline, underlying that purity of the heart is crucial. According to Calvin, most people are subjected to the vice regarding the lack of discipline and therefore had to resort to the remedy of marriage, a metaphor which Luther had already used in 1522. Yet Calvin goes so far that he explicitly warns against misusing marriage and defiling it through unbridled greed and lust (cf. CO II, 8, 44). Discipline and moderation should therefore also be decisive within the bond of matrimony. Apart from these rules of conduct for the married couple, Calvin does not address the inner-marital relationship of spouses. Emotions are also not mentioned. Luther argues quite differently here. He also refers to the fact that one should live chaste with works, words, and thoughts in marriage, but he emphasises that

The Reform of Marriage and the “Reformed Marriage”

55

everyone should love and cherish their God-given spouse. Mutual love, harmony, and loyalty are for him the best guarantors for chastity, which results from mutual appreciation and does not have to be specifically offered (cf. WA 30.I, 163). A fundamental difference between Luther and Calvin seems to exist here. Calvin does not ascribe any importance to the emotional quality of marital relationships, whereas Luther sees the crucial prerequisite in this aspect. An analogy to the purpose of the sixth/seventh commandment becomes apparent here. Whereas the love of neighbour constitutes the starting point for Luther, for Calvin it is the divine commandment for purity and chastity. To conclude his interpretation, Calvin accordingly emphasises that it is God who demands the purity of the soul, spirit, and body, and therefore rejects everything that is contrary (cf. CO II, 8, 44).

5.

Conclusion

The question concerning a specifically Reformed marital theology constitutes the starting point of this lecture. The answer to this question is complicated by disparate research, which to some extent does not make any historical contextualisation or follows confessional standpoints. It is initially important that marriage was already upgraded in the Late Middle Ages due to economic, social, and political changes, but celibate life remained subordinated. The matrimonial competencies of the Church were called into question in the course of the increasing formation of territorial states, without the ecclesiastical jurisdiction or canonical matrimonial law losing their jurisdiction. Martin Luther’s criticism of celibate life and sacramental theology established theological justifications for developments already initiated in the Late Middle Ages, whereby it gained great explosive force. An important consequence of this was that marriage had to be upgraded versus celibate status; new institutions and new normative rules had to be created in place of dwindling ecclesiastical marital jurisdiction. All reformers followed Luther’s marital doctrine and exhibited agreement in the key aspects. On the one hand, this is associated with the traditional lines within which a person moved. In particular, the teachings of matrimonial property by Augustine played a pivotal role in this connection. On the other hand, all reformers were faced with identical challenges, but they should ensure order and stability in times of upheaval. In light of this, it is not surprising that in various Protestant territories quite similar solutions were attained in view of church affairs, ecclesiastical institutions, church orders, and moral orders as well as measures regarding church discipline. An adaptation of these measures seems to have occurred primarily in the second half of the sixteenth century, so that confessionalisation research in this field rightfully refers to functional equalities, but

56

Siegrid Westphal

without clarifying the dependence of individual developments from each other. If a specifically Reformed marital theology can be mentioned, then it is in the sphere of moral discipline, matrimonial law, and marital jurisdiction, which Reformed theologians and authorities focused on very early. In contrast to this, the Lutheran territories only created corresponding institutions and measures later, and in doing so were apparently oriented towards the Reformed development. This early fixation on the normative and institutional level is also associated with Calvin’s legal attitude. He initially approached the topic of marriage via this access and developed a theology of marriage at the end of his life, but ultimately this merely remained a fragment of his theology, and therefore cannot be properly grasped. His statements regarding the topic of marriage coincide with the Lutheran marital theology in the essential cornerstones. However, the direct comparison of the sixth/seventh commandment shows that there are definitely differences with regard to the evaluation of individual aspects. Whereas Luther starts from the love of neighbour, Calvin emphasises the divine commandment regarding chastity. Whereas Luther defends marriage as divine and first status, expresses a praise of marriage and emphasises the marital purpose of procreation and upbringing, Calvin refers to marriage as a necessary status and remedy in order to avoid fornication. Sexuality is part of human nature for both reformers. Yet Calvin portrays a menacing scenario of rampantly acted out sexuality, greed and lust, which must therefore be controlled – even in marriage. For Luther, mutual love and respect which results from chastity is crucial, whereas Calvin does not attribute any importance to the emotional quality of marriage for the moralisation of humans and society. For him the divine commandments – which are more or less law – take centre stage, and that is why these commandments must be obeyed to restore order. These are different accentuations, but this does not constitute any independently Reformed theology of marriage.

Bibliography Secondary Literature Bünz, Enno/Volkmar, Christoph (2005), Das landesherrliche Kirchenregiment in Sachsen vor der Reformation, in: Enno Bünz/Stefan Rhein/Günther Wartenberg (ed.), Glaube und Macht. Theologie, Politik und Kunst im Jahrhundert der Reformation, Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 89–110. Burghartz, Susanna (2003), Umordnung statt Unordnung? Ehe, Geschlecht und Reformationsgeschichte, in: Helmut Puff/Christopher Wild (ed.), Zwischen den Disziplinen? Perspektiven der Frühneuzeitforschung, Göttingen: Wallstein, 165–185.

The Reform of Marriage and the “Reformed Marriage”

57

Burghartz, Susanna (1999), Zeiten der Reinheit – Orte der Unzucht. Ehe und Sexualität in Basel während der Frühen Neuzeit, Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh. Conrad, Anne (2016), Vom Evangelium zur Ehe. Frauen in der Zeit der Reformation, in: Martina Schattkowsky (ed.), Frauen und Reformation. Handlungsfelder – Rollenmuster – Engagement, Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag, 39–52. Gause, Ute (2006), Kirchengeschichte und Genderforschung. Eine Einführung in protestantischer Perspektive, Tübingen: UTB. Henze, Barbara (1999), Kontinuität und Wandel des Eheverständnisses im Gefolge von Reformation und katholischer Reform, in: Anne Conrad (ed.), “In Christo ist weder man noch weyb”. Frauen in der Zeit der Reformation und der katholischen Reform, Münster: Aschendorff, 129–151. Johnson, James Turner (2005), Marriage as a Covenant in Early Protestant Thought: Its Development and Implications, in: John Witte Jr./Eliza Ellison (ed.), Covenant Marriage in Comparative Perspective, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 124–152. Kingdon, Robert M. (1995), Adultery and Divorce in Calvin’s Geneva, Cambridge/London: Harvard University Press. Kaufmann, Thomas (2008), Ehetheologie im Kontext der frühen Wittenberger Reformation, in: Andreas Holzem/Ines Weber (ed.), Ehe – Familie – Verwandtschaft. Vergesellschaftung in Religion und sozialer Lebenswelt, Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 285–299. Köhler, Walther Erich (1932), Zürcher Ehegericht und Genfer Konsistorium, vol. 1: Das Zürcher Ehegericht und seine Auswirkung in der deutschen Schweiz zur Zeit Zwinglis, Leipzig: Heinsius. Köhler, Walther Erich (1942), Zürcher Ehegericht und Genfer Konsistorium, vol. 2: Das Ehe- und Sittengericht in den süddeutschen Reichsstädten, dem Herzogtum Württemberg und in Genf, Leipzig: Heinsius. Parsons, Michael (2005), Reformation Marriage. The Husband and Wife Relationship in the Theology of Luther and Calvin, Edinburgh: Rutherford House. Schilling, Heinz (1993), Frühneuzeitliche Formierung und Disziplinierung von Ehe, Familie und Erziehung im Spiegel calvinistischer Kirchenratsprotokolle, in: Paolo Prodi (ed.), Glaube und Eid. Treueformeln, Glaubensbekenntnisse und Sozialdisziplinierung zwischen Mittelalter und Neuzeit, München: Oldenbourg, 199–235. Schmidt, Heinrich Richard (1992), Konfessionalisierung im 16. Jahrhundert, München: Oldenbourg. Schmidt, Heinrich Richard (2008), “Nothurfft vnd Hußbruch”. Haus, Gemeinde und Sittenzucht im Reformiertentum, in: Andreas Holzem/Ines Weber (ed.), Ehe – Familie – Verwandtschaft. Vergesellschaftung in Religion und sozialer Lebenswelt, Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 301–328. Selderhuis, Herman J. (1999), Marriage and Divorce in the Thought of Martin Bucer, Leiden: Thomas Jefferson University Press. Selderhuis, Herman J. (2009), Johannes Calvin. Mensch zwischen Zuversicht und Zweifel. Eine Biographie, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus. Sewell, Alida Leni (2011), Calvin, the Body, and Sexuality. An Inquiry into His Anthropology, Amsterdam: VU University Press.

58

Siegrid Westphal

Strohm, Christoph (2009), Calvins theologisches Profil. Humanistische, juristische und theologische Prägungen, in: Ansgar Reiss/Sabine Witt (ed.), Calvinismus. Die Reformierten in Deutschland und Europa, Dresden: Sandsteinverlag, 82–89. Westphal, Siegrid (1994), Frau und lutherische Konfessionalisierung. Eine Untersuchung zum Fürstentum Pfalz-Neuburg, 1542–1614, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag. Westphal, Siegrid (1999), Kirchenzucht als Ehe- und Sittenzucht. Die Auswirkungen von lutherischer Konfessionalisierung auf das Geschlechterverhältnis, in: Anne Conrad (ed.), “In Christo ist weder man noch weyb”. Frauen in der Zeit der Reformation und der katholischen Reform, Münster: Aschendorff, 152–171. Westphal, Siegrid (2016), Frauen- und geschlechtergeschichtliche Ansätze als neuer Zugang zur Erforschung von Bekenntnisschriften, LuJ 83, 211–232. Witt, Christian V. (2017), Martin Luthers Reformation der Ehe, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Witt, Christian V. (2014), Zwischen Kontinuität und Diskontinuität. Luthers theologisches Eheverständnis und die Orientierungshilfe des Rates der EKD, StC 68, 194–208. Witte, John Jr. (2008a), Ehe und Familie, in: Herman J. Selderhuis (ed.), Calvin Handbuch, Tübingen: Siebeck, 449–459. Witte, John Jr. (2008b), Vom Sakrament zum Vertrag. Ehe, Religion und Recht in der abendländischen Tradition, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus. Wright, David F. (1984), Women Before and After the Fall. A Comparison of Luther’s and Calvin’s Interpretation of Genesis 1–3, The Churchman 98/2, 126–135. Wunder, Heide (1992), “Er ist die Sonn, sie ist der Mond”. Frauen in der Frühen Neuzeit, München: Grin Publishing.

Edit Szegedi

Calvinisms in Early Modern East Central Europe (1550–1650)

Introduction Writing about Calvinism in East Central Europe is like speaking about events on a little known planet. So, every time a prehistory is required, in order to put this ‘planet’ on the mental map of the audience. Speaking about Calvinisms instead of Calvinism makes such an endeavor more difficult than it already is. On the other hand, Calvinisms is a useful term in order to show both the plurality of Calvinism in East Central Europe and the fragmented presentation, because the present paper will not deal with the history of Reformation in East Central Europe, not even with the history of Calvinism in East Central Europe. Such a subject is far too complex and it would exceed the limits of a simple paper. The focus is on some aspects of East Central European Calvinism and the goal of the present paper is rather to challenge the view about Calvinism as typical to Western Europe by raising some questions and to show the necessity to deal with these Calvinisms as legitimate parts of European Reformed tradition and not only some exotic diaspora. The questions are: • Was the Calvinism in East Central Europe a ‘secondhand’ Calvinism, a simply receiver of Reformed theology or was it a creative part of European Calvinism? • Is the history of European Calvinism comprehensible without Calvinisms in East Central Europe at the fringe of Western Christianity, in the vicinity of Islam? • Was Calvinism a short-lived confession of a social elite?

60

Edit Szegedi

1.

“Ibi nam sunt Maumettani, Arriani, Lutherani, Calvinistae, Anabaptistae, Confessionistae, Semilutherani, Antelutherani, Ruteni et Schismatici” (Scalimoli da Castellana 1994, 75):1 the Riddle of East Central Europe

East Central Europe is certainly a historiographical construction (Troebst: 2006, 2–4), which refers to the territory of former medieval Kingdoms of Bohemia, Poland and Hungary (Hackman: 2015). It does not cover the modern NationStates, it is rather characterized by shifting borders and uncertain existence of the political communities (Louthan/Murdock: 2015, 2–3). The early modern period witnessed dramatic changes in the political map of the area – after 1541 the Kingdom of Hungary is divided under the Habsburgs and Ottomans resulting three political units: Royal Hungary under Habsburg rule, Ottoman Hungary and Principality of Transylvania, which was under Ottoman suzerainty, but without direct Ottoman rule; after the battle of the White Mountain 1620 Bohemia – which meant the lands of the Bohemian Crown – Bohemia, Moravia, Silezia, the Lusatias – disappeared as political actor. Early modern East Central Europe does not mean only a dramatic political and historical geography, but also an area with an extraordinary cultural, linguistic and religious diversity and richness. In the Middle Ages and in the early modern period it was that part of Europe which still had large Jewish communities (Davies: 1984, 166; Louthan/Murdock: 2015, 5). Christianity meant both Western and Eastern Christianity, and beginning with the fifteenth century it witnessed the very first state which belonged to Western Christianity without recognizing the Pope as head of the Church – Bohemia (Haberkern: 2015, 15–37; Nowarowska: 2015, 122–136). And East Central Europe was the sanctuary for nonconforming Christians, fleeing from Western Europe and the GermanRoman Empire (Lisy-Wagner/Murdock: 2015, 451). Beginning with 1541 the Ottoman Empire conquered and occupied the central part of the Kingdom of Hungary, so Islam was not any more the religion beyond the frontier, it became part of everyday experience for many inhabitants. But Islam existed also in Poland and was not linked to Ottoman rule (Davies: 1984, 162).

1 Report of Andrea Scalimoli da Castellana, head of the Province of Conventual Franciscans in Hungary to Giovanni Berardicelli da Larino, the head of the Conventuals, 1641 in: Tóth: 1994, 75.

Calvinisms in Early Modern East Central Europe (1550–1650)

2.

61

Was East European Calvinism a ‘Secondhand’ Calvinism?

Calvinism in East Central Europe is less known and is treated rather as a ‘secondhand’ Calvinism, which had no notable influence on European Protestantism and on European history.2 But Reformation in East Central Europe gave such personalities like Matthias Flacius for Lutheranism, Johannes a Lasco for Calvinism – though a Lasco was rather Reformed than a clear-cut Calvinist (Springer: 2015, 164–167), Comenius for Protestantism in general (Válka: 1998, 139; Müller: 2005, 648–662; Murdock: 2000, 276–277). It is linked to the outbreak of the Thirty Years’ War (Burkhardt: 1992, 74–85; Petránˇ/Petránˇova: 1998, 144), which was a major event of European history. And on the Reformation Wall in Geneva stands the statue of István Bocskai, Prince of Transylvania between 1605– 1606 and leader of the estates’ uprising of 1604–1605, which can be seen as an application of Calvinist resistance theories – or rather, why these theories could be applied only partially in a multi-confessional environment.3 The uprising brought religious freedom to East Central Europe, the reason for which István Bocskai was considered in 1909 worthy for the Reformation Wall (Várkonyi: 2007, 16). So, why not shift the perspective or at least enlarge the historical horizon? Was Western Europe in the beginning of the Reformation not rather the periphery than the center? Calvinism in East Central Europe had its specific features and differs from mainstream Calvinism, which was created in the western part of Europe,4 but even so: what is mainstream Calvinism anyway? Calvinism in Scotland differed from that in the Palatinate (Wolgast: 2011, 23), as proved for instance by the Westminster and Heidelberg Catechisms. An explanatory note is necessary: because of linguistic reasons but also because of its complex character this paper will focus mainly on Calvinism in Hungary and Transylvania. Beyond the historical interest there is also a rather contemporary reason, which shows the importance of Calvinism in East Central Europe: at the Synod of the Hungarian Reformed Church in 2017, János Áder, the Catholic president of Hungary said, that the greatest good, that the Hungarians received from the Reformation is the Reformed Hungarian (református magyar ember) (Áder: 2017). Calvinism is considered ‘the’ Hungarian religion in and outside Hungary, in spite of the Catholic majority of its population. Indeed, even 2 Resuming the historiographical clichés: Murdock: 2000, 291. 3 There is a quite large amount of literature concerning the influence of Calvinist resistance ideas in Bocskai’s uprising. However, there is also a literature which is rather skeptical. Bocskai illustrates rather the flexibility and adaptibility of Calvinism, even in its political theology (Murdock: 2000, 8; 28–29). 4 Graeme Murdock concludes in his book about Calvinism in Hungary and Transylvania, that Calvinist Reformation was not only a Western European event (2000, 291).

62

Edit Szegedi

if Calvinism is, considering its origins, as foreign for Hungarians as Lutheranism, it marked fundamentally Hungarian nation building and shaped the national identity. Being a Calvinist in East Central Europe means mostly to be a Hungarian – no other confession is so ethnically and linguistically confined in this part of Europe.5 But this Calvinism differs from that of Western Europe – it has the same theological fundaments but the features are different (Csepregi: 2013, 363–365).

3.

“Die Religion belangend/sind sie/der Fürst/Adel/und gemeine Mann/alle der Calvinischen Lehre zugethan” (Tröster 1666, 89): Calvinism as Confession of the Political and Social Elite?

If there is something like common knowledge about Calvinisms in East Central Europe, then it is, that it was confined to the political and social elite, a confession of the nobility, so to speak, which is the reason why it failed to penetrate the whole society, so it did not last very long and left only weak traces (Davies: 1984, 183; 198). Calvinism flourished as confession of an influent minority around 1560– 1620, but after that it vanished. The main reason for which Transylvania is so important for the history of Calvinism is expressed in the aforementioned quotation from a description of Transylvania, written by a Lutheran scholar: Calvinism reached all strata of society and the country had Reformed/Calvinist rulers and Calvinism exists till today. In the seventeenth century there existed every type of Calvinism in Transylvania: from the ‘Calvinismus aulicus’6 of the Princes, to that of nobility and of clergymen schooled at Western, mainly Dutch universities (Murdock: 2000, 52–64) to the craftsmen, free peasants and the serfs. There was an ‘Episcopalian’7 Calvinism (Gudor: 2012, 31) and a Presbyterian one. We have an urban Calvinism (however not as powerful as in the case of the Transylvanian Lutherans and Unitarians) and a rural Calvinism, which retained a good deal of the Pre-Reformation inheritance. So for instance, until 1630 many rural Calvinist 5 Unitarians are in a greater degree ethnically and linguistically Hungarians, but they are only a tiny minority. 6 ‘Calvinismus aulicus’ refers mainly to the situation of seventeenth century Calvinism in the Holy Roman Empire and means a Calvinism adjusted to a lavish courtly lifestyle, like in Heidelberg, or a Calvinism confined to the Court and a small political, intellectual and military elite like in Brandenburg after 1613 (the conversion of the Elector to Calvinism). 7 ‘Episcopalian Calvinism’ means a church organization, which resembles rather the Anglican than the classical Calvinist churches, because of the significant role of bishops at the expense of local communities.

Calvinisms in Early Modern East Central Europe (1550–1650)

63

churches still had their mural paintings (L. Kelemen: 1945, 45; Mihály: 2008, 16– 17). What Transylvania lacks is a history of persecution of Calvinism, instead it has a history of Calvinists as persecutors – mainly of Unitarians (Szegedi: 2009, 34; 36–38). Hungary on the other hand lacked a Calvinist ruler in the early modern period, and despite a Calvinist nobility it was rather a rural and small-town confession (Murdock: 2000, 22; 26). It experienced the vicinity of Islam in various degrees and had its history of persecution by the Catholic political establishment of the Habsburgs in the seventeenth century (the so-called “Decade of Mourning” 1670–1680). In the lands of the Bohemian Crown clear-cut Calvinism had few adepts, it was linked to a rather tiny minority in the ranks of the political, social and intellectual elite. There were however Protestants of other denominations schooled at Calvinist institutions or influenced by Calvinism – Comenius is maybe the most notorious example. The Hussite tradition was lively enough and doctrinally open, so that even those, who had affinities with Calvinist theology at least to some aspects of it, did not consider themselves necessarily Calvinist (Lemberg: 1994, 3– 15). So we have in Bohemia Calvinist influenced Czech Brethren and in Silesia a German-speaking nobility which favored late Humanism and Melanchthon’s mediating theology over strict theological delimitations (Garber: 1988, 335; 338). Around the outbreak of the Thirty Years’ War, Calvinists were a tiny, but very radical minority. The role of this group can be seen in at least two ways: as a revolutionary avant-garde who attempted to accomplish the concept of corporative state or as an aggressive, irresponsible minority which dragged the rest of the Protestants into a confrontation with no other outcome than war (Burkhardt: 1992, 77–84). In Poland the magnates in Lithuania, but also the lesser nobility and city dwellers in Lesser and Greater Poland supported Calvinism, while at the end of the sixteenth century a part of the elite of the cities of Royal Prussia became Calvinist, at least at the level of the political and partially clerical elite (Jürgens: 2014, 120–122; Müller: 1988, 251). But Calvinism or rather Reformed theology had it had adherents among the Transylvanian Saxons too and not only as Crypto-Calvinism, in fact Melanchthonian theology, which dominated the Church of Augsburg Confession between 1572–1601. After 1601 under Bishop Matthias Schiffbaumer, who had only Reformed literature in his library, there were attempts to bring the Church near to Calvinism. Only in 1615 there was the orthodox-Lutheran turn, but in 1653 there were still some Saxon villages in which ministers used the Reformed service of communion (Szegedi: 2006, 146–156; 158–160).8 8 In 1653 the Saxon Johann Simonius whom participated at the deliberations of the Diet writes

64

Edit Szegedi

It is interesting to draw a comparison between Calvinism in Poland and Transylvania, because their evolutions are similar and yet so contrasting. In the sixteenth century Calvinism in Poland was an important political actor (twenty percent of the nobility, majority of the lay-members of the Sejm) which even dreamed of a national Polish church around 1555–1560. Even if this plan failed, the nobility managed to strengthen its role in society by curtailing the power of the Catholic Church – so in 1565, when the king prevented his starostas to force the decisions of ecclesiastical courts upon nobles, while maybe the greatest success of Polish Calvinism remains its contribution to the Warsaw Confederation 1573. But in the seventeenth century the number of Calvinists dwindled, many of those who became Calvinists by converting from Eastern Orthodoxy, became now Catholics (Davies: 1984, 182–188; 198). On the other hand, in sixteenth century Transylvania the Reformed existed, they were not an underground church, but were overshadowed by the Antitrinitarians. They were until the 1570s part of the ‘Hungarian’ church or rather Hungarian speaking congregations lead by Ferenc Dávid (Balázs: 2009, 19–20). In the seventeenth century however, the Calvinists blossomed, partially at the expense of the Antitrinitarians (G. Kelemen: 1935, 54). The similarity between the two Calvinisms lies in the fact that the Reformed churches in Poland and Transylvania were the cradles of Antitrinitarianism. In Transylvania Antitrinitarianism became in 1566 the doctrine of the above mentioned Hungarian church or ‘religion’ of Cluj, how it was called in 1564,9 when its doctrine was Reformed. While Antitrinitarianism developed in sixteenth century Poland as a movement, which eventually separated itself from the Reformed and became associated with Anabaptism (Balázs: 2015, 175–177), about the situation in some Saxon congregations: „[…] in fundo regio sindt zwei real-calvinischen pfarr, der Bröszer der ungrische, der saltzbürger, welche beide incorporati sindt universitati ecclesiasticae. Taciti sindt im gleichen plures solito sub arguina pelle in Schesburger und Repser stull, welche zwar jure jurando versprochen augustanam invariatam confessionem publice et privatim zu dociren, corde tamen et concionibus fucum faciunt miseris suis auditoribus; solten diesze latinantes Calviniani herauszbrechen, so wirdt derentwegen universitas ecclesiastica nicht schiffbruch leiden; sobaldt solches geschehen, kommen sie von der pfarr und von ihrer ecclesi ut fidefragi, den die ecclesiae sind lutrisch, und nicht calvinisch. […] Per discursum kompt hervor, in nechst gehaltener visitatione publica ecclesiarum Saxonicarum hette zwar der verstorbene H. Bischoff in propria persona selbst die beide capitula Schespurg und Ruppense visitirett, aber ganz nichts in religions sachen investigirett von den suspectis pastoribus, (nota) blosz nur von den armen pauren und die auditoribus das testimonium begerett: ob ihr seelsorger auch in predigten die lutrische religion predigte, lehrete et responderunt miselii laici de grege simplici: ja ehrwürdiger H. bischoff, ut caecus de colore. Der calvinische gifft greifft den menschen nicht so ahn, wie ein rasender hundt, sondren gar subtill und heimlichschleichett er ein, wo er einschleichen kann.“, Simonius naplója in: Erdélyi Országgyülési, vol. 13, 443. 9 “Religionem et assertionem ecclesie Coloswariensis.” (Erdélyi Országgyülési Emlékek, vol. 2, 231).

Calvinisms in Early Modern East Central Europe (1550–1650)

65

Transylvanian Antitrinitarianism took another direction. Not only by becoming the belief of Prince János Zsigmond, but also by taking the place of the Reformed. In fact, the Reformed church was recreated after 1571 by the Diet and with the support of the Catholic prince, István Báthory, by delimiting institutionally the Reformed from the Antitrinitarians (Erdélyi Országgyülési Emlékek, vol. 3, 108) and allowing the Reformed superintendent to undergo his duties even amongst Antitrinitarians, but restraining Ferenc Dávid’s sphere of activity, strictly confining it territorially and theologically (Erdélyi Országgyülési Emlékek, vol. 3, 112–123). So we have in the seventeenth century Calvinist princes, who ruled a state with many confessions, a situation which the Prince could not alter, theoretically at least: in 1595 the Diet adopted under military pressure the system of four established churches/religions (religiones receptae): Catholic, Calvinist, Lutheran and Antitrinitarian (Erdélyi Országyülési Emlékek, vol. 3, 472). Religio recepta means, that the Diet could not change the juridical status of the aforementioned religions, as long as they do not make doctrinal changes,10 while those religions/ churches, which in 1595 were not nominated, as for instance the Orthodox church of the Romanians, were tolerated, that means, their juridical status stood at the discretion of the Diet and the Prince.11 However, belonging to a established church was not enough to belong to the three privileged Nations: the Hungarians, Saxons and Szeklers. So for instance Calvinist Hungarian serfs did not belong to the Hungarian Nation and the Lutheran Saxon serfs were not members of the Natio Saxonica either. Between 1570–1691 Transylvania had four Catholic princes, ten Reformed princes, one Orthodox, one Lutheran (the rebellious count Thököly), one Antitrinitarian or rather Sabbatarian, two with no clear institutional affiliation – Gábor Báthory and János Zsigmond. Some ruled for a very short period – Imre Thököly for instance ruled only one month – others for longer periods, but even those, who ruled more than five years could not convert their subjects to their confession. Landlords were forbidden to convert their serfs by using any kind of force.12 This interdiction applied also for the Orthodox serfs. Under these circumstances the Reformed princes had to balance their duty as members and patrons of their church with their duty as political rulers of a multi-confessional state, who delivered an oath to protect religious freedom.13 10 11 12 13

Approbatae: 1815, Prima Pars; Titulus Primus; Articulus II, 1; Articulus III, 2. Approbatae: 1815, Articulus III, 2. Approbatae: 1815, Articulus VIII, 5–6. Examples of the form of oath: Formula juramenti principis electi, in: Erdélyi Országgyülési Emlékek, vol. 8, 98–99 (Gábor Báthory), Forma juramenti novi electi principis Gabrielis Bethlen die 23. Octobris, in: Erdélyi Országgyülési Emlékek, vol. 6, 368. These oaths were not only formalities – even if Gábor Báthory for instance transgressed it – so that they forced

66

4.

Edit Szegedi

Preaching in Shackles – Life under Ottoman Rule

Preaching in shackles refers to a chapter in the life of István Kis Szegedi, a rather peace-seeking theologian, a mediator between Lutheran and Swiss positions, who was captured in 1561 by the Turks and tortured. He was allowed to preach, wearing shackles (Bitskey: 2009–2010, 178; Skaricai: 1974, 99–102). We can interpret this image of preaching in shackles in at least two ways: • Even in shackles, he could preach. • He could preach, but in shackles. But only the two interpretations together are historically accurate. When the Ottomans conquered Buda in 1541 and occupied the central part of Hungary – Hungary was conquered and occupied, Transylvania was conquered but not occupied – the Ottoman Empire became a neighbor of the GermanRoman Empire and was five days away from Wittenberg (Bitskey: 2009–2010, 175). But the Ottoman Empire did never really threaten Western Europe (Bitskey: 2009–2010, 181; Hegyi: 1976, 261). It is important to stress this fact, which explains the slightly different attitude of Luther and Calvin towards the Turkish menace. It is worth reminding, that the Turks were invaders and the conquest of Hungary meant sufferings and death. Christians had to leave their towns, the churches were transformed into mosques (Hegyi: 1976, 80). But the situation in Hungary was different to that in the Balkans: the Ottomans did not have any more resources for a systematic colonization of Muslim population (Hegyi: 1976, 74; 120) – Hungary was rather a kind of hinterland, while Transylvania was the hinterland of a hinterland. The Turks did not conquer Transylvania, because it had no sense, military speaking. So, Transylvania was not occupied, it had no Ottoman occupation army and therefore no visual signs of Islamic presence. In fact, somebody could live its entire life without seeing a living Turk or Albanian or Bosnian in Turkish services. There were military expeditions of the Ottoman Empire, but that was often the sole contact an inhabitant of Transylvania could have. Turkish military raids were a traumatic experience, but Ottoman soldiers were not worse than Christian – Catholic or Protestant – mercenaries. In Hungary the contacts between Turks and Christians had different intensities: in the outskirts of the cities it could be high, while in many places – towns like Kecskemét, Nagyko˝rös, Cegléd or those at the margins of the Ottoman some limits upon the princes. In 1623 Gábor Bethlen said, according Péter Gál, envoy of Miklós Eszterházy, that he hates Unitarians above all and if he could, ho would expel them, but because he took an oath to protect religious freedom, he cannot do it (Erdélyi Országgyülési Emlékek, vol. 8, 143).

Calvinisms in Early Modern East Central Europe (1550–1650)

67

territory like Debrecen or Miskolc – it was low or it lacked (Hegyi: 1976, 128–129). The region between the Danube and the Tisza, from Hatvan to Subotica had only one Turkish clerk, the kadi of Kecskemét but only until 1597. So, we can speak in Hungary of this entire region as being under Turkish rule without Turks (Hegyi: 1976, 82). The contacts with Islam were scarce, because the Turks did not attempt any conversions and indeed there were few conversions compared to the Balkans (Hegyi: 1976, 77). Christian life under Ottoman rule was not easy, but it was easier to be a Protestant under Turkish rule than under Habsburg rule (Bitskey: 2009– 2010, 176) and it was easier to be a Catholic in the Ottoman Empire than in Elizabethan England. The Turks did not hinder the public exercise of faith (Murdock: 2000, 24), except of course in the inner cities. Sometimes they permitted the construction of churches and toleration was for them financially more rewarding than missionary zeal (Hegyi: 1976, 266). The relationship between Ottoman rule and spreading and maintaining Calvinism in Hungary and Transylvania is loaded with myths. Indeed, the Turks were quite suspicious about Catholics, because they were linked to foreign powers, but they favored Calvinism only slightly more (Hegyi: 1976, 266). However, they had some sympathy for Antitrinitarians because they were considered as real monotheists, while other Christians were considered as semiidolatrous – individuals who stopped in their evolution towards perfect and true monotheism (Hegyi: 1976, 266). One thing was forbidden – to criticize the Coran (Bitskey: 2009–2010, 179). But the vicinity of the Ottoman Empire could be exploited by the Protestant nobility in the Austrian Lands in order to get religious concessions (Schlachta: 2015, 71–72). So the spreading and survival of Protestantism in East Central Europe and the delay of Counter-Reformation in Austria were linked but not directly. But there were also the shackles – in the seventeenth century the Ottoman occupation cut off Hungarian Calvinism from the centers in Western Europe (Hegyi: 1976, 268). It survived intellectually thanks to the help it got from Transylvanian Calvinists, who did not experience such a harsh separation from the universities in the Netherlands or German-Roman Empire (Hegyi: 1976, 209; 268). The attitude of Calvinists in Hungary and Transylvania towards the Ottoman Empire was anything but clear cut. Ottomans were enemy and ally,14 and com-

14 See for instance the quite remarkable political evolution of István Bocskai regarding the Ottoman Empire, from from the very obedient anti-ottoman and Habsburg-friendly servant of the Catholic Báthory dynasty; as one of the counselors of Prince Zsigmond Báthory, we convinced him to break with the political tradition of the Principality and to seek the alliance with the Habsburgs against the Ottoman Empire: Barta/Bóna/Makkai/Mócsy/Tóth/Vékony:

68

Edit Szegedi

pared to the Habsburgs were the lesser evil, because it guaranteed the autonomy of the Transylvanian state. The Turks were seen for a while even as objects of Protestant mission (Murdock: 2000, 140–141).

5.

The Other Christians – Irenicism, Missionary Zeal, Intolerance

Calvinism in East Central Europe was confronted from its beginnings with different types of Christianity, many of which Western Europe knew only indirectly. It was Eastern Christianity in Poland, Hungary and Transylvania, Hussitism in its different features in Bohemia, but there were also the various kinds of Protestantism, mainly Lutheranism or Antitrinitarianism, and of course Catholicism, whether in its organized form or as remnants of the once powerful church. While the relations of Calvinism with Catholicism are familiar for those researching church history in Western Europe, the real relations to Lutherans – not the theoretical ones – are rather linked to the margins of Western Europe – the Palatinate – and to East Central Europe. The relations between Calvinism in power and Lutherans as political, not necessarily numerical minority, are part of the so called Second Reformation and its vehicle, the Irenicism (Benrath: 1988, 346; 350). The approach to confessional pluralism in East Central Europe in the sixteenth century was different than in Western Europe or in the Holy Roman Empire. Of course, this approach cannot be considered tolerance but rather a peaceful coexistence as result of strategies of adaptation (Lisy-Wagner/Murdock: 2015, 451–452). The role of Calvinism in the making of the religious policy of the East Central European states is often difficult to discern. The articles of the Transylvanian Diet from 1568 and 1571 referring to the freedom of preaching are linked to Antitrinitarian theology (Balázs: 2016, 47–51; 56–57). But the Warsaw Confederation of 1573 can be linked to the Calvinist nobility of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, however not necessarily to Calvinist theology, because the Confederation is a political text, not a theological one. The Warsaw Confederation – like the articles from 1568 and 1571 of the Transylvanian Diet – does not enumerate the religions and denominations which should be protected, it does not speak about freedom of conscience, but of securing religious peace (Müller: 2004, 311–328; Preuße: 2011, 4). Another kind of irenical approach, which had its Calvinist share, but which started from the Catholic king of Poland, Wladyslaw IV, was the Colloquium Caritativum in Torun in 1645. This colloquy had like its Western Calvinist1986, 524–525; see also the opinion of his contemporaries: Ferencz: 1863, 138–140; Weiss: 1860, 144.

Calvinisms in Early Modern East Central Europe (1550–1650)

69

Lutheran counterparts a very political agenda. It was planned to be a universal ecumenical synod, more comprehensive than ever envisaged. Comenius who was a genuine Irenicist was very reluctant about the colloquy, because he feared the hidden political agenda. However, he reluctantly participated (Müller: 2005, 650; 663). The colloquy was a failure, but it showed that even in the heated political and religious context of the mid 1640s it was still possible to start a dialogue (Müller: 2005, 655; Davies: 1984, 179). The relations to other denominations were not entirely influenced by the theological content of the different confessions but also by its legal and political status. However, the relation between theological content and the legal and political status was anything but unequivocal. The case of seventeenth century Transylvania, the era of the Reformed princes, proofs the complexity and paradox of inter-confessional relations. As mentioned in chapter 2, beginning with 1595 there was a system of established and tolerated religions – it is better to speak about religions in the modern sense after 1623 due to the settlement of the first Jewish community in Transylvania. While the system of established confessions was a closed one, the number of tolerated religions was never defined. So, during the seventeenth century there were settled in Transylvania not only the Jews, but also Hutterites from Moravia – the so called Habans – and Armenians. Their presence, like that of the tolerated Orthodox Romanians, did not alter the political and religious system (Vianu/Rosen/Stanciu/Eskenasy: 1995, 102–103; 105; 133; Erdélyi Országgyülési Emlékek, vol. 8, 103; Ávedik: 1896, III–VIII; Szegedi: 2009, 31). Due to this system we could assume, that relations between Calvinism – as confession of the Prince, but still not a state-church, at least not theoretically – and the other established Protestant confessions, the Lutherans and Unitarians, were better than the relations with the established Catholics and the tolerated Orthodox. But this assumption is misleading. Certainly, the relations between Lutheran and the Calvinist establishment were at least polite, but the relations between the Calvinist establishment and the Catholics were better than those with the Unitarians. While under the Calvinist prince Gábor Bethlen (1613–1629) the Catholic church knew a revival,15 due to the princely support for the Jesuits, the systematic persecution of the Unitarians began (Kovács: 2014, 382–386).16 As the Unitarian church could not be dissolved legally – it was an established church –, it was attacked under the pretext of Sabbatarianism (Erdélyi Országgyülési Emlékek, vol. 7, 488–489; Kénosi To˝zsér/Fosztó István: 2009, 51–56; Kovács: 2014, 383– 15 In the report of Péter Gál the situation of the Catholics is considered to be satisfying (Erdélyi Országgyülési Emlékek, vol. 8, 143; Hargittay: 2014, 357–361). 16 The measures against Unitarianism were supported by mainly Dutch Calvinists (Murdock: 2000, 123–125).

70

Edit Szegedi

385). After 1638 the Unitarian church came de facto under the control of the predominantly Reformed Diet and the censorship of the Reformed bishop (Erdélyi Országyülési Emlékek, vol. 10, 177–179), so that Unitarians were not able anymore to print theological literature. It was not forbidden to print Unitarian books, but it was made impossible. So, when in 1648 the first translation of the New Testament into Romanian was printed with princely support (Noul Testament: 1648), the Unitarians lived for ten years in the pre-Gutenberg era. This example shows how complicated the confessional and political configuration of the Principality was. The Orthodox church, which was not a religio recepta, had a very ambivalent and often contradictory relationship with the Reformed Church of Transylvania. Formally it was an independent body – it had its own hierarchy –, but the superintendent or bishop of the Reformed Church was its head (Juhász: 1940, 150; Dumitran: 2004, 192). The nomination and investiture of the metropolitan bishop of the Orthodox church in Transylvania happened under the surveillance of the Reformed Church and the (Calvinist) Prince, the newly ordained metropolitan bishop had to sign the so called Conditiones, which transformed him into a subaltern of the Reformed bishop (Juhász: 1940, 150; Dumitran: 2004, 139–141). However, the relations between Calvinism and Eastern Christianity in Transylvania cannot be reduced either to the relations between the confession of the nobility and the confession of the serfs. As we have seen, the serfs in Transylvania belonged to different confessions, even to the established ones, and there existed an Orthodox petty nobility and Orthodox priests were granted nobility without conversion to Calvinism (Gudor/Dumitran: 1999, 27–42). Eastern Christianity was on the one hand different to Catholicism and seemed to have important things in common with Reformed/Protestant theology and practice, but on the other hand it was quite the opposite of Protestant, not only Calvinist, religiosity: Eastern Christianity saw the Word in a greater degree than Catholics did. How could Calvinism, centered upon hearing the Word, cope for instance with the cult of icons, when its adiaphora-conception was much narrower than that of Lutheranism? Yet, Eastern Christianity was a legitimate part of Christianity and it was possible to find the common ground between Eastern Orthodoxy and Reformation Christianity,17 showing and removing in the same time elements considered superstitious.18 But it seems, that it was room for a liturgical “Calvinism meets Byzantium” kind of interaction too, not ordered from above, but created by the congregations. At least in some of the con17 In a letter from september 24th 1640 to prince György Rákóczi I. bishop István Katona Geleji considered that the main difference between Calvinism and Eastern Orthodoxy consists the cult of saints and images and the origin of the Holy Spirit (Ágoston: 1859, 215). 18 For the interpretation of superstition by the Calvinist bishops see: Cra˘ciun: 2001, 222.

Calvinisms in Early Modern East Central Europe (1550–1650)

71

gregations elements of the Byzantine liturgy were included in the Calvinist service alongside with psalm singing and other genuine Reformed practices (Sipos: 2012, 218–219). The missionary zeal of Calvinist theologians and Princes meant to force Calvinist ideas and practices upon the Eastern Orthodox believers, but at the same time these measures generated the religious awareness of the targeted population.19 Calvinism influenced the Eastern Orthodoxy of Transylvanian Romanians in many and complex ways, both oppressive and emancipatory (Dumitran: 2004, 343). The use of the Romanian as language of culture is very much linked to Reformation and in particular to Calvinism. The first Romanian texts written with Latin letters are linked to Calvinism and the first mentioning of the nowadays name of the people “român” instead of “rumân” is in the first attempt to translate the Old Testament into Romanian (Arvinte/Gafton/Guia: 2005, 18). In a direct – by translating and printing – and in a twisted and unexpected way – by rejecting Calvinist influences – Calvinism contributed to the formation of modern Romanian identity. So, the attempt to bring Calvinism to people belonging to Eastern Christianity was a permanent process of translation in reinterpretation.20 Searching for common traits between Calvinism and Eastern Orthodoxy but also the political reality of Transylvania led to the apparently astonishing conclusion, that Calvinism had much more in common with Eastern Orthodoxy than with Antitrinitarianism. Of course, the above mentioned Orthodox nobility in Transylvania was no threat to the Calvinist establishment, while the Antitrinitarian/Unitarian nobility, even weakened, could still challenge the political power. There was however another reason for this seemingly paradoxical behavior: Transylvania was, like its Orthodox neighbors Moldavia and Valachia, part, at least for the first half of the seventeenth century, of the political projects of international Calvinism (Nagy: 2013, 85–92).21 The Calvinisms in East Central Europe were, beyond a Lasco and Comenius, rather receivers, but creative ones. They adapted Calvinism and Reformed theology to the local and regional needs, often by softening its features. So for instance, for Western Calvinists the often colorful churches in Hungary and Transylvania with their painted ceilings may seem “popish” or even “heathen” –

19 See for instance the revival of the Orthodox monastic life in Transylvania, often with the toleration or even support of the Calvinist authorities: Dumitran: 2004, 243–245. 20 See for instance the Calvinist re-interpretations of Orthodox sacraments (Dumitran: 2004, 245–255). 21 About the famous letter of Kyril Lukaris addressed to Gabriel Bethlen as being a forgery: Nagy: 2013, 93–99.

72

Edit Szegedi

these paintings sometimes have pre-Christian or non-Christian themes –, but in this part of Europe these churches are considered genuinely Calvinists. These churches are indeed concessions to popular religiosity, but also a sign of a larger and deeper reception of Calvinism in society than in the far better known territories of “classical” Calvinism like the Palatinate or Brandenburg (after 1613), where Calvinism remained confined to the princely courts – hence the name “aulicus”- and a small political, intellectual and military elite. Even if in Poland or in the Lands of the Czech Crown Calvinism never gained much popularity – at least not in its theologically “pure” version –, it was still influential, not only for the region but even for Western Calvinism. For the Calvinism of the seventeenth century East Central Europe was a living and politically relevant reality and not some exotic periphery. The vanishing of Calvinism in Central East Europe in the first half of the seventeenth century except in Hungary and Transylvania does not mean, that the interest for this issue should remain only on historical-antiquarian level. Calvinisms in East Central Europe are part of a historical experience that is forgotten by the mainstream, but which is relevant for our times: the vicinity and contacts to other religions and cultures, the practical confessional coexistence, a very flexible attitude towards historical heritage. The value of this experience stands precisely in its difference to West European Calvinism.

Bibliography Primary Sources Áder, János (2017), A reformáció a magyar nemzet életének része, nemzettudatának támasza, http://www.origo.hu/itthon/20170624-ader-a-reformacio-es-a-nemzet-kapc solatarol.html, retrieved on 27. 06. 2017. Ágoston, Ötvös (1859), Geleji István élete és levelei I. Rákóczi Györgyhöz, in: Új Magyar Muzeum 9, 199–329. Approbatae (1815), Constitutiones Regni Transylvaniae & Partium Hungariae Eidem Annexarum. Ex Articulis ab Anno Millesimo Quingentissimo Quadragesimo, ad praesentem huncusque Millesimum Sexcentessimum Quinquagesimum tertium conclusis, compilatae. Ac primum quidem per Dominos Consiliarios revisae, tandemque in Generali Dominorum Regnicolarum, ex Edicto Celsissimi Principis, D.D. GEORGII RÁKOCZI II. Dei Gratia Principis Transylvaniae, Partium Regni Hungariae Domini, & Siculorum Comitis, & Domini eorum Clementissimi, in Civitatem Albam Juliam ad diem decimumquintum mensis Januarii Anni praesentis 1653. Congregatorum, conventu, publice relectae, intermixtis etiam Constitutionibus sub eadem Diaeta editis, Claudiopoli 1815, in: Erdély Országának Három Könyvekre osztatott Törvényes Könyve Melly Approbata, Compilata Constitutiokbol és Novellaris Articulusokbol áll. Mostan

Calvinisms in Early Modern East Central Europe (1550–1650)

73

újjabban, minden Haza-Fiaknak hasznokra ki-botsáttatott, Kolosváratt, Nyomtattatott a Királlyi Lyceum Betüivel. Arvinte, Vasile/Gafton, Alexandru/Guia, Sorin (2005), Palia de la Ora˘¸stie, vol. 1, Ias¸i: Editura Universita˘¸tii Alexandru Ioan Cuza. Ávedik, Lukács (1896), Szabad királyi Erzsébetváros monográfiája, Szamosújvár: Erdélyi Örmény Gyökerek Kulturális Egyesület. Erdélyi Országgyülési Emlékek (1875–1898), = Monumenta Comitialia Regni Transylvaniae, Sándor Szilágyi (ed.), 21 vol., Budapest: Akadémia Könyvkiadó-Hivatala. Ferencz, Mikó Hídvégi (1863), Hídvégi Mikó Ferencz historiája 1594–1613, in: Gábor Kazinczy (ed.), Gr. Illésházy István nádor följegyzései 1592–1603 és Hídvégi Mikó Ferencz historiája 1594–1613. Bíró Sámuel folytatásával. Monumenta Hungariae Historica. Magyar Történelmei Emlékek, Második osztály: Írók, vol. 7, Pest: Egöenberger Ferdinánd M. Akad. Könyvárusnál. Noul Testament (1648), Sau Împa˘carea au Legea Noao a lui Iisus Hristos Domnului nostru Izvoditu cu mare socotint¸a˘, den izvod grecescu ¸si slovenescu, pre limba˘ rumâneasca˘ cu îndemnaria ¸si porunca denpreuna˘ cu toata˘ cheltuiala a ma˘riei sale Gheorghe Racot¸i craiul Ardealului. Tipa˘ritu-s-au întru a ma˘rii sale tipografie, dentíiu noou în Ardeal, în cetatea Belgradului, Anii de la întruparea Domnului ¸si Mîntuitorului nostru Iisus Hristos, luna lui ghenariu 20. Modern edition: Noul Testament (1998). Tipa˘rit pentru prima data˘ în limba româna˘ la 1648 de ca˘tre Simion S¸tefan, mitropolitul Transilvaniei. Reeditat dupa˘ 350 de ani cu binecuvântarea Înalt Prea Sfint¸itului Andrei, arhiepiscopul Alba Iuliei, Alba Iulia: Editura Arhiepiscopiei Ortodoxe. Tóth, István György (ed.) (1994), Relationes Missionarum de Hungaria et Transilvania (1627–1707), Roma/Budapest: Academia Hungariae in Roma. Tröster, Johannes (1666), Das Alt- und Neu-Teutsche Dacia. Das ist: Neue Beschreibung des Landes Siebenbürgen/Darinnen dessen Alter/und jetzigen Einwohner/wahres Herkom[m[en/Religion/Sprachen/Schrifften/Kleider/Gesetz/und Sitten/nach Historischer Wahrheit von zweytausend Jahren her erörtert: Die berühmtesten Städt in Kupfer eigentlich abgebildet: dabey viel Gothische und Römische Antiquitäten und Anmahnungen entdecket warden. Neben etlichen andern Kupfern/und einer geschmeidigen emendirten Landkarten das erste Mahl, Nürnberg: Johann Kramers. Vianu, Alexandru/Rosen, Moses/Stanciu, Sergiu/Eskenasy, Victor (ed.) (1995), Izvoare ¸si ma˘rturii referitoare la evreii din România, vol. 1, second edition, Bucures¸ti: Hasefer. Weiss, Michael (1860), Liber annalium raptim scriptus per Michelem Weyss Mediensem, Senatorem Coronensis, in quo conscribendo, etsi non eam (chare haeres) quam merito debuissem, adhibere potui diligentiam, nihilominus tamen charum tibi Eum speravi futurum, ob studium et voluntatem singularem in te meam, quam praesento, dum commemorando qualitercunqur tandem annales hosce, non me, sed te iis docere cupio. 1590–1612. Continuatio usque 1615, in: Eugen von Trauschenfels (ed.), Deutsche Fundgruben zur Geschichte Siebenbürgens, Neue Folge, Kronstadt: Johann Gött.

74

Edit Szegedi

Secondary Literature Balázs, Mihály (2009), Über den europäischen Kontext der siebenbürgischen Religionsgesetze des 16. Kahrhunderts, in: Günter Frank (ed.), Humanismus und europäische Identität, Fragmenta Melanchthoniana 4, Ubstadt-Weiher: Verlag Regionalkultur, 11–27. Balázs, Mihály (2015), Antitrinitarianism, in: Howard Louthan/Graeme Murdock (ed.), A Companion to the Reformation in Central Europe, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition 61, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 171–194. Balázs, Mihály (2016), Megjegyzések János Zsigmond valláspolitikájáról, in: Mihály Balázs (ed.), Hitújítás és egyházalapítás között: tanulmányok az erdélyi unitarizmus 16– 17. századi történetéro˝l, Magyar Unitárius Egyház/Editura Episcopiei Unitariane, Kolozsvár/Cluj-Napoca: 33–59. Barta, Gábor/Bóna, István/Makkai, László/Mócsy, András/Tóth, Endre/Vékony, Gábor (ed.) (1986), Erdély története, vol. 1, Budapest: Akadémiai. Benrath, Gustav Adolf (1988), Irenik und Zweite Reformation, in: Heinz Schilling (ed.), Die reformierte Konfessionalisierung in Deutschland – das Problem der „Zweiten Reformation“: wiss. Symposium des Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte 1985, SVRG 195, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 349–358. Bitskey, István (2009–2010), Die Konfrontation zwischen christlichem Abendland und türkischem Islam am Beispiel Ungarns in der frühen Neuzeit, in: Ungarn-Jahrbuch 30, 169–183. Burkhardt, Johannes (1992), Der Dreißigjährige Krieg, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Cra˘ciun, Maria (2001), Superstition and Religious Difference in Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century Transylvania, in: Eszter Andor/István György Tóth (ed.), Frontiers of Faith. Religious Exchange and the Constitution of Religious Identities 1400–1750, Budapest: Central European University, 213–233. Csepregi, Zoltán (2013), A reformáció nyelve. Tanulmányok a magyarországi reformáció elso˝ negyedszázadának vizsgálata alapján, Budapest: Balassi Kiadó. Davies, Norman (1984), God‘s Playground. A History of Poland, vol. 1., the Originis to 1795, New York: Columbia University Press. Dumitran, Ana (2004), Religie ortodoxa˘ – religie reformata˘. Ipostaze ale identita˘¸tilor confesionale a românilor din Transilvania în secolele XVI–XVII, Cluj-Napoca: Ratio Et Revelatio. Garber, Klaus (1988), Zentraleuropäischer Calvinismus und deutsche „Barock“-Literatur. Zu den konfessionspolitischen Ursprüngen der deutschen Nationalliteratur, in: Heinz Schilling (ed.), Die reformierte Konfessionalisierung in Deutschland – das Problem der „Zweiten Reformation“. wiss. Symposium des Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte 1985, SVRG 195, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 317–348. Gudor, Botond Kund (2012), Az eltu˝nt gyulafehérvári Református Egyházmegye és egyházi közösségei. Inquisitorie Dioceseos Alba-Carolinensis Reformata relatoria (1754), Kolozsvár: Kriterion Kiadó. Gudor, Botond Kund/Dumitran, Ana (1999), Înnobilarea românilor în epoca principatului autonom al Transilvaniei ¸si semnificat¸iile sale religioase, in: Mediaevalia Transilvanica 3/1–2, 27–42.

Calvinisms in Early Modern East Central Europe (1550–1650)

75

Haberkern, Phillip (2015), The Lands of the Bohemian Crown: Conflict, Coexistence, and the Quest for the True Church, in: Howard Louthan/Graeme Murdock (ed.), A Companion to the Reformation in Central Europe, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition 61, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 11–39. Hackmann, Jörg (2015), Ostmitteleuropa, in: Online-Lexikon zur Kultur und Geschichte der Deutschen im östlichen Europa, ome-lexikon.uni-oldenburg.de/p32790, retrieved on 29. 05. 2015. Hargittay, Emil (2014), “…az ártatlanság még az ellenséget is gyakorta kegyességre indittya …”. Még egyszer a Káldi-biblia támogatásáról, in: Veronka Dáné/Ildikó Horn/ Makó Mária Lupescu/ Teréz Oborni/Eniko˝ Rüsz-Fogarasi/Gábor Sipos (ed.), Bethlen Erdélye, Erdély Bethlene. A Bethlen Gábor trónra lépésének 400. Évfordulóján rendezett konferencia tanulmányai, Kolozsvár: Erdélyi Múzeum-Egyesület/Cluj-Napoca: Societatea Muzeului Ardelean, 357–362. Hegyi, Klára (1976), Egy világbirodalom peremvidékén, Budapest: Gondolat. Jánó, Mihály (2008), Bekezdések az erdélyi falfestmények 18.–19. századi kutatástörténetébo˝l, in: Jánó Mihály (ed.), Színek és legendák. Tanulmányok az erdélyi falfestmények kutatástörténetéhez, Miercurea Ciuc: Pallas Akadémia, 16–23. Juhász, István (1940), A reformáció az erdélyi románok között, Kolozsvár: Grafika. Jürgens, Henning P. (2014), Est mihi cum multis et doctis viris in Polonia dulcis amicitia. Die Wirkung Melanchthons in Polen im 16. Jahrhundert, in: Jahrbuch des Instituts für Kultur und Geschichte der Deutschen im östlichen Europa 22, 107–124. Kelemen, Gál (1935), A Kolozsvári unitárius kollégium története (1568–1900), vol. 1, Kolozsvár: Minerva. Kelemen, Lajos (1945), Erdélyi magyar templomi- és mennyezetfestmények a XVII. századból, Cluj-Napoca: Minerva. ˝ zsér, János/ Uzoni Fosztó, István, (2009), Az erdélyi unitárius egyház törKénosi To ténete, vol. 2, Kolozsvár: Erdélyi Unitárius Egyház. Kovács Sándor (2014), Bethlen Gábor az unitárius egyháztörténet-írásban in: Veronka Dáné/Ildikó Horn/ Makó Mária Lupescu/ Teréz Oborni/Eniko˝ Rüsz-Fogarasi/Gábor Sipos (ed.), Bethlen Erdélye, Erdély Bethlene. A Bethlen Gábor trónra lépésének 400. Évfordulóján rendezett konferencia tanulmányai, Kolozsvár: Erdélyi Múzeum-Egyesület/Cluj-Napoca: Societatea Muzeului Ardelean, 380–386. Lemberg, Margret (1994), Im Strudel der böhmischen Ständekatastrophe. Das unvollendete Verlöbnis des Albrecht Johann Smirˇický mit Amelie Elisabeth von Hanau und der Kampf um das Erbe, in: Bohemia 35, 1–44. Lisy-Wagner, Laura/Murdock, Graeme (2015), Tolerance and Intolerance, in: Howard Louthan/Graeme Murdock (ed.), A Companion to the Reformation in Central Europe, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition 61, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 451–474. Louthan, Howard/Murdock, Graeme (2015), Introduction: The Reformation in Central Europe, in: Howard Louthan/Graeme Murdock (ed.), A Companion to the Reformation in Central Europe, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition 61, Leiden/ Boston: Brill, 1–8. Müller, Hans-Joachim (2005), Die irenischen Bemühungen des Johannes Amos Comenius in Polen 1642–1645 und die Entstehung der Consultatio Catholica, in: Werner Korthaase/Sigurd Hauff/Andreas Fritsch (ed.), Comenius und der Weltfriede. Comenius and the World Peace, Berlin: Deutsche Comenius-Gesellschaft, 645–667.

76

Edit Szegedi

Müller, Michael G. (2004), Nicht für die Religion selbst ist die Conföderation inter dissidentes eingerichtet …“. Bekenntnispolitik und Respublica-Verständnis in PolenLitauen, in: Luise Schorn-Schütte (ed.), Aspekte der politischen Kommunikation im Europa des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts, München: De Gruyter Oldenbourg, 311–328. Müller, Michael G. (1988), Zur Frage der Zweiten Reformation in Danzig, Elbing und Thorn, in: Heinz Schilling (ed.), Die reformierte Konfessionalisierung in Deutschland – das Problem der „Zweiten Reformation“. wiss. Symposium des Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte 1985, SVRG 195, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 251–265. Murdock, Graeme (2000), Calvinism on the Frontier 1600–1660. International Calvinism and the Reformed Church in Hungary and Transylvania, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nagy, Levente (2013), A román reformáció és az irénizmus, in: Nagy Levente (ed.), Lehetséges küldetés? Hitek és tévhitek a roman reformáció körül, Budapest: ELTE Eötvös, 73–101. Nowarowska, Natalia (2015), Reform before Reform? Religious Currents in Central Europe, ca. 1500, in: Howard Louthan/Graeme Murdock (ed.), A Companion to the Reformation in Central Europe, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition 61, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 121–143. ˇ ova, Lydia (1998), The White Mountain as a Symbol in Modern Petránˇ, Josef/Petrán Czech History, in: Mikulasˇ Teich (ed.), Bohemia in History, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 143–161. Preusse, Christian (2011), Die Warschauer Konföderation von 1573 und die Ausdifferenzierung von Politik und Religion im neuzeitlichen Europa, Themenportal Europäische Geschichte, 01. 01. 2011, www.europa.clio-online.de/essay/id/artikel-3597, retrieved on 24. 02. 2014. Schlachta, Astrid von (2015), The Austrian Lands, in: Howard Louthan/Graeme Murdock (ed.), A Companion to the Reformation in Central Europe, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition 61, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 68–91. Sipos, Gábor (2012), A reformáció továbbélése a hátszegi románok között in: Gábor Sipos (ed.), Reformata Transylvanica. Tanulmányok az erdélyi református egyház 16–18. századi történetéhez, Kolozsvár: Erdélyi Múzeum-Egyesület/Cluj-Napoca: Societatea Muzeului Ardelean, 211–223. Skaricai, Mátyás (1974), Stephani Szegedini vita auctore Matthaeo Scaricaeo Pannonio, in: Kathona Géza (ed.), Fejezetek a török hódoltsági reformáció történelmébo˝l, Budapest: Akadémiai. Springer, Michael S. (2015), Johannes a Lasco, a Polish and European Reformer, in: Howard Louthan/Graeme Murdock (ed.), A Companion to the Reformation in Central Europe, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition 61, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 161–168. Szegedi, Edit (2006), Konfessionsbildung und Konfessionalisierung im städtischen Kontext. Eine Fallstudie am Beispiel von Kronstadt in Siebenbürgen (ca. 1550–1680), in: Edit Szegedi (ed.), Berichte und Beiträge des Geisteswissenschaftlichen Zentrums Geschichte und Kultur Ostmitteleuropas an der Universität Leipzig, Leipzig: GWZO, 126– 297. Szegedi, Edit (2009), Die Religionspolitik der reformierten Fürsten Siebenbürgens in: Humanismus und europäische Identität, in: Günter Frank (ed.), Humanismus und

Calvinisms in Early Modern East Central Europe (1550–1650)

77

europäische Identität, Fragmenta Melanchthoniana 4, Ubstadt-Weiher: Verlag Regionalkultur, 29–44. Troebst, Stefan (2006), Region und Epoche statt Raum und Zeit – “Ostmitteleuropa” als prototypische geschichichtsregionale Konzeption, Themenportal Europäische Geschichte, www.europa.clio-online.de/essay/id/artikel-3217, retrieved on 24. 02. 2014. Várkonyi, R. Ágnes (2007), Die internationalen Hintergründe des Bocskai-Freiheitskampfes (Die ungarische Geschichte aus europäischer Perspektive), in: Barta János/Manfred Jatzlauk/Papp Klára (ed.) “Einigkeit und Frieden sollen auf Seiten jeder Partei sein”: Die Friedensschlüsse von Wien (23. 06. 1606) und Zsitvatorok (15. 11. 1606), Debrecen: Institut fu¨ r Geschichte der Universita¨ t Debrecen, 13–31. Válka, Josef (1998), Rudolfine culture, in: Mikulasˇ Teich (ed.), Bohemia in History, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 117–139. Wolgast, Eike (2011), Calvinismus und Reformiertentum im Heiligen Römischen Reich, in: Irene Dingel/Herman J. Seldershuis (ed.), Calvin und Calvinismus. Europäische Perspektiven, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 23–46.

Reformers

Maria Lucia Weigel

Reformationen – Pluralität im Bild? Bildnisse von Johann Bockelson von Leiden, Thomas Müntzer und Andreas Bodenstein, genannt Karlstadt

1.

Einführung: Bildrhetorik im Reformatorenbildnis des 16. Jahrhunderts

Bereits in den ersten Luther-Bildnissen der frühen 1520er Jahre von Lucas Cranach d. Ä. manifestiert sich eine humanistische Bildsprache, die ihre Ausprägung zuvor in Gelehrtenbildnissen erfahren hatte (vgl. Löcher: 1995, 352–390). Sie beinhaltet eine visuelle Argumentation, die sich aus unterschiedlichen bildlichen Topoi zusammensetzt und den Betrachter sowohl von der lebendigen Präsenz der dargestellten Person als auch ihrem Anliegen überzeugen soll.1 Im Fall der Bildnisse von Reformatoren ist dies die reformatorische Lehre in unterschiedlichen theologischen Akzentsetzungen. Die Darstellungen beinhalten dabei immer wiederkehrende Bildmotive und Textinhalte: Der betreffende Reformator ist in Halbfigur in Gelehrtenkleidung hinter einer Brüstung mit Inschrifttafel wiedergegeben, ein Buch in den Händen haltend. Die Inschriften sind in lateinischer oder griechischer Sprache gehalten, ihre Inhalte nehmen Bezug auf die Dichotomie zwischen der bildlichen Darstellung des vergänglichen Äußeren und dem nicht darstellbaren, unsterblichen Geist, stellen Lobgedichte auf zumeist bereits Verstorbene dar oder machen schlichte biographische Angaben.2 Nicht immer handelt es sich dabei jedoch um Memorialbildnisse bereits Verstorbener; gerade die Wittenberger Theologen um Luther finden sich häufig zu Lebzeiten in dieser Weise abgebildet. Die Naturnähe war dabei vornehmliche Bezugsgröße jeder bildlichen Darstellung.3 Dies bezieht 1 Vgl. grundlegend zur Verbindung von Rhetorik, Kunsttheorie und Kunst in der Frühen Neuzeit: Rensselaer: 1940, 197–269; Koch: 2007, 161–179; Larsson: 2012, bes. 27–34. 2 Zu den Inschriften und deren Einbettung in humanistisches Gedankengut vgl. Ludwig: 1998, 123–161. 3 Wobei hier wie dort der Anschein von Unmittelbarkeit und Lebendigkeit gemeint sein konnte, der nicht zwingend mimetische Naturabschilderung einschloss, sondern zu dieser in einem Spannungsverhältnis stand, vgl. für die Nachantike und Frühe Neuzeit Niehr: 2003, 472–485, hier 477; 484f.

82

Maria Lucia Weigel

sich jedoch nicht ausschließlich auf die mimetische Wiedergabe der Gesichtszüge, vielmehr wurden diese stets vor dem Hintergrund der aus der Antike überlieferten Physiognomielehren interpretiert, so dass das tatsächlich Vorhandene im Sinne dieser Lehren überformt wird.4 Naturnähe in dieser Lesart erfüllt damit eine der ebenfalls seit der Antike an die Gattung gerichteten Hauptforderungen, indem Lichtregie, Glanzeffekte, Raumtiefe und minutiöse Wiedergabe von Stofflichkeiten den Dargestellten wie lebendig erscheinen lassen, unabhängig von der Überlieferung der Gesichtszüge (vgl. Metzger: 2011, 21– 47). Ein „wahrhaftiges Konterfei“ der Frühen Neuzeit sollte stets vor dem Hintergrund dieser Überlegungen betrachtet werden. Ein Beispiel soll dies anschaulich werden lassen und zugleich als Referenzwerk für die dann folgenden Untersuchungen von drei Porträts von Reformatoren des 16. Jahrhundert dienen, die in der bis heute dominierenden, lutherisch geprägten protestantischen Geschichtsschreibung als Abtrünnige und Abweichler stigmatisiert wurden: Johann von Leiden, Thomas Müntzer und Andreas Bodenstein, genannt Karlstadt.

2.

Das Luther-Bildnis als Referenzwerk

2.1

Heinrich Aldegrever, Bildnis Martin Luther, Kupferstich 1540

Der reformatorisch gesinnte und aus dem katholischen Paderborn in das protestantisch geprägte Soest ausgewanderte Kupferstecher und Maler Heinrich Aldegrever schuf um 1540 zwei Kupferstiche mit den Konterfeis von Luther und Melanchthon.5 Aldegrever war dem Reformator nicht persönlich begegnet (vgl. Lorenz: 2002, 94). Das Bildnis des Hauptreformators erwuchs aus einer Kombination unterschiedlicher, von Cranachs Luther-Bildnissen inspirierter Vorlagen sowie dem Luther-Bildnis von Georg Pencz aus dem Jahr 1530, dem ebenfalls ein Melanchthon-Porträt als Pendant beigegeben war (vgl. Lorenz: 2002, 94). Luther ist in dem Typus dargestellt, der ab Mitte der 1520er Jahre in der CranachWerkstatt in gemalten Versionen in Serie ging (Abb. 1). Aldegrevers Kupferstich bedient sich wie diese der bewährten, im weiteren zu untersuchenden humanistischen Bildsprache, indem er Luther im Brustbildformat auf dunkel schraffiertem Grund hinter einer gerahmten steinernen Inschrifttafel zeigt, die mit

4 Zu der Rezeption der populären pseudo-aristotelischen Physiognomonika in der deutschen Kunst des 16. Jahrhunderts vgl. Reißer: 1997, bes. 19–31; 308–315, sowie Metzger: 2010, 8–39, hier 18; 20f. 5 Zu Aldegrevers Biographie vgl. N.N.: 2002, 5f.

Reformationen – Pluralität im Bild?

83

Entstehungsjahr und folgendem, nicht in den Vorlagen aus der Cranach-Werkstatt vorgegebenen Text versehen ist: ASSERVIT CHRISTVM DIVINA VOSE LVTHERVS CVLTIBVS OPPRESSAM RESTITVITQVE FIDEM ILLIVS ABSENTIS VVLTV HAEC DEPINGIT IMAGO PRAESENTE MELIVS CERNERE NEMO POTEST. MARTINVS LVTHERVS. [Luther nahm mit dem göttlichen Wort Christus in Schutz und stellte den durch Kultgebräuche bedrängten Glauben wieder her. Dieses Bildnis beschreibt sein Antlitz, während er fern ist; wäre er hier, könnte keiner ihn besser sehen. Martin Luther] (Übersetzung: Luckhardt: 1985, 56).

Das hell gestaltete Schriftfeld über Luthers Kopf trägt eine Inschrift nach 1Petr 5,7: „IACTA CVRAM TVAM IN DOMINVM ET IPSE TE ENVTRIET [Wirf deine Sorgen auf den Herrn und er wird dich ernähren].“ Das Monogramm Aldegrevers über Luthers linker Schulter lehnt sich an das Dürer-Monogramm an. Aldegrever berief sich im Hinblick auf Technik und Inhalt vielfach insbesondere auf das Kupferstichwerk des Nürnberger Künstlers (vgl. Kösters: 2002, 15–32; hier: 28). Luther ist in seiner universitären Amtstracht wiedergegeben, Barett und Schaube. Die Kopfbedeckung überschneidet das obere Inschriftfeld. Es handelt sich hierbei um eine der Strategien zur Suggestion von Raumtiefe, die im zu Beginn ausgeführten Sinne dem Betrachter die lebendige, leibhaftige Präsenz des Porträtierten vor Augen stellen soll. Desgleichen ist die Verschattung im Rücken Luthers zu deuten. Auf diese Absicht verweist auch die Inschrift auf der Tafel, zugleich wird hier in einem gängigen frühneuzeitlichen Topos die Authentizität des Bildnisses behauptet. Der Topos der Wiederherstellung des Glaubens findet sich bereits in der Rezeption eines der ersten Kupferstiche mit dem Porträt Luthers von Lucas Cranach d. Ä. aus dem Jahr 1520 bei Hans Baldung, genannt Grien (vgl. Warnke: 1984, 32, Abb. 16). Die Inschrift zu Häupten verweist auf einen Aspekt lutherischer Theologie, spezifiziert das Bildnis also im Sinne einer reformatorischen Botschaft. Die Bildfindung soll als Beispiel für die Rezeption der als authentisch erachteten Bildnisse aus der Cranach-Werkstatt dienen. Diese wurden bereits im 16. Jahrhundert ebenso wie in folgenden Epochen in neue Kontexte gestellt, wie in einem knappen Überblick im Folgenden umrissen wird. Darin spiegeln sich jeweils zeitgenössische Diskurse in Theologie, Religionspolitik und Kunst gleichermaßen wider.6 Der Rekurs auf die Luther-Porträts der Cranach-Werkstatt belegt die Bedeutung von Authentizität, die in den Bildnissen des kursächsischen Hofmalers in besonders hohem Maß gewährleistet schien. Deren ursprünglicher

6 Dies erschließt sich bereits in einer ersten Durchsicht des reichen Bildmaterials aus unterschiedlichen Epochen, vgl. Rietschel: 1983, 5–20, mit Verweis auf ältere Forschungsliteratur, und Sörries: 1996, 23–53.

84

Maria Lucia Weigel

Abb. 1: Heinrich Aldegrever, Bildnis Martin Luther, 1540, Kupferstich, 17,3 × 13 cm

Entstehungs- und Deutungskontext wurde dabei nicht oder nur in Teilen berücksichtigt und durch Verortung der Konterfeis in neuen Kontexten ersetzt.

Reformationen – Pluralität im Bild?

85

Die bildlichen Botschaften, die sich in den Porträts des Wittenberger Theologen aus der Cranach-Werkstatt finden – dies schließt deren Fortführung unter Lucas Cranach d. J. ein – wurden in der Rezeption neu gewichtet oder gewandelt. Der geistinspirierte Mönch, der Prediger des Evangeliums, die universitäre Lehrautorität im Hinblick auf die Implementierung der Neuen Lehre, der Kirchengründer, -vater und -lehrer wurden dann als verheißener Prophet, Bekenner und Glaubensheld im Kampf gegen die römische Papstkirche und andere Konfessionen sowie als Nationalheld der Deutschen propagiert, in häufig nur gradueller Verschiebung der von der Cranach-Werkstatt bereits geschaffenen Akzente, gelegentlich aber in einer Neukontextualisierung, die die von der CranachWerkstatt bereits formulierten Deutungsfelder hinter sich lässt. Die Neugewichtung erfolgte durch Attribute, beigegebene Texte, die Art der bildlichen Inszenierung oder den Ort der Präsentation. Das jeweils entstehende LutherBildnis wurde als überzeitliche Ikone behandelt, indem die Entstehungsbedingungen des Vorbildes nicht thematisiert, der Aspekt des unverändert Überlieferten dagegen betont wurde.

2.2

Die Ausbildung einer Bildtradition in der Darstellung von Reformatoren lutherischer und reformierter Konfession

Diese Gebäude bildlicher Argumentation wurden in Bezug auf Porträts von Reformatoren zuerst anhand der Person Martin Luthers von Cranach in den 1520er Jahren ausgearbeitet, die Darstellungen anderer Reformatoren lutherischer Konfession folgten diesem Vorbild. Einzelne, anhand der Person Luthers entwickelte Bildtypen wirkten traditionsbildend (vgl. Löcher: 1995, 375), ihre Bildsprache wurde auch in der Darstellung anderer reformatorischer Persönlichkeiten eingesetzt, in bewusster Bezugnahme auf den Hauptreformator. Im Fall Luthers kann von einer bildlichen Propaganda-Offensive gesprochen werden.7 Im lutherisch geprägten Protestantismus wurde das Bild des Hauptreformators nicht nur ausgehend von Wittenberg gezielt zur Verbreitung der Neuen Lehre und ihres Gründers eingesetzt. Auch den Bildnissen Schweizer Reformatoren liegt diese humanistische Bildnisauffassung zugrunde, sie weisen ein vergleichbares Repertoire an Bildmotiven und bildlichen Argumentationsstrategien auf (vgl. Löcher: 2002, 376). Der Umgang mit dem Bildnis im Kontext der Reformation in der Schweiz ist durch stärkere Zurückhaltung geprägt als im Hinblick auf die Wittenberger Reformation. Auf Schriften Zwinglis, die im 16. Jahrhundert zeitnah zu seinem Tod ediert wurden, findet sich das Autorenbildnis durchgängig nicht auf der Titelseite, sondern, wenn vorhanden, auf den 7 Vgl. Warnke: 1984, 61; zu den Hintergründen vgl. van Gülpen: 2002, 108–117; 297–348.

86

Maria Lucia Weigel

folgenden Seiten. Sowohl Zürcher als auch Genfer Reformatoren äußern Bedenken über die Verbreitung ihrer Bildnisse im Hinblick auf mögliche Idolatrie.8

3.

Darstellungen von Reformatoren anderer reformatorischer Strömungen

Wie aber werden die Reformatoren im 16. Jahrhundert bildlich inszeniert, die andere reformatorische Strömungen vertreten?9 Beispielhaft herausgegriffen seien hier Johann Bockelson von Leiden, Thomas Müntzer und Andreas Bodenstein, die nicht in der chronologischen Abfolge ihres Auftretens, sondern der Chronologie der hier diskutierten Bildzeugnisse entsprechend vorgestellt werden. Folgt ihre Darstellung denselben Mustern der Verbildlichung, wie sie bei Lutheranern und Reformierten zum Tragen kommen? Werden in ihren Porträts auf dieselbe Weise reformatorische Botschaften, jedoch anderen Inhalts, übermittelt? Zu Beginn der Untersuchung sollen zunächst Antworten auf Fragen gesucht werden, die den historischen Zusammenhang beleuchten können, in denen Bildnisse der Genannten entstanden. Wer waren die Schöpfer, wer die Adressaten der Porträts? In welchem Kontext wurden die Bildnisse gezeigt, wie wurden sie verbreitet? Signifikant erscheint folgender Befund: Erste Bildnisse von Vertretern anderer Reformationen treten nicht als Autorenbilder auf Titelblättern ihrer Schriften zutage. Dagegen hatten auf diesem Wege die Konterfeis der Wittenberger Reformatoren rasche Verbreitung in allen Teilen des Reiches gefunden. Zu Lebzeiten wurden die Protagonisten anderer reformatorischer Strömungen nach heutigem Kenntnisstand nicht und später nur selten porträtiert (vgl. Vogler: 2010, 13f). Dies geschah fast ausnahmslos im Sinne einer Verketzerung, wurden ihre Porträts doch zumeist von Gegnern im Umlauf gebracht und durch eine entsprechende Bildrhetorik negativ konnotiert.10

8 Vgl. für die Zürcher Reformatoren den Briefwechsel zwischen dem Engländer Christopher Hales und Heinrich Bullinger bei Boesch: 1949, 16–50. Für die Genfer Reformatoren Pierre Viret und Guillaume Farel Vgl. CR 43, 396, nr. 2093. Bezeichnend ist, dass die Porträts der im reformierten Kontext angesiedelten Protagonisten der Reformation überwiegend der Gattung des Memorialporträts zuzurechnen sind, also nach dem Tod der Dargestellten entstanden. Die Darstellung bereits Verstorbener in einer Weise, die diese als Exempel der Geschichte präsentierte, verminderte die Gefahr idolatrischen Bildgebrauchs, vgl. Christin: 2005, 383–400; Christin/Deschamp: 2011, 195–219. 9 Die aktuelle Diskussion um die Begriffsbestimmung bezüglich derartiger Strömungen berücksichtigend wird hier auf die Bezeichnung „radikale“ Reformationen verzichtet, vgl. die Diskussion bei Gruber: 2018, 22–23. 10 Zu denselben Ergebnissen kommt Gruber, ohne die Platzierung von Bildnissen der Vertreter

Reformationen – Pluralität im Bild?

3.1

87

Heinrich Aldegrever, Bildnis Johann Bockelson von Leiden, Kupferstich, 1536

Von Johann Bockelson von Leiden, der als führender Vertreter des Täufertums in Münster ein Täuferreich errichtete und als dessen König agierte,11 ist ein prachtvoll instrumentiertes Bildnis von der Hand Heinrich Aldegrevers bekannt (Abb. 2) (Thier: 2000a, 234–235). Der Künstler schuf es möglicherweise im Auftrag von Franz von Waldeck.12 Dieser, seit 1530 Bischof von Minden, zwei Jahre später als Bischof von Münster und Osnabrück eingesetzt, zeigte sich tolerant gegenüber reformatorischen Bestrebungen. Gleichwohl bekämpfte er das Täuferreich mit Unterstützung sowohl von Kölner Seite als auch von Landgraf Philipp von Hessen, weil es seine landesherrliche Gewalt in Frage stellte. Die Niederschlagung der Täufer in Münster 1535 endete bekanntlich mit deren öffentlicher Hinrichtung und dem Ausstellen der Leichen in eisernen Körben am Lamberti-Kirchturm im Januar 1536. Das Bildnis des Königs der Täufer wurde, wie dasjenige seines Statthalters, des ehemaligen Bürgermeisters Bernd Knipperdolling, Anfang 1536 von Heinrich Aldegrever angefertigt, das Monogramm ist auf dem Bildgrund sichtbar. Es entstand also vor dem zuvor diskutierten LutherBildnis, bedient sich aber ebenso wie dieses einer sich im Bild vielschichtig entfaltenden Bildrhetorik, die im Folgenden dargestellt werden soll. Das Bildnis zeigt Johann Bockelson von Leiden im Alter von 26 Jahren in Halbfigur über einer Inschrifttafel, bekleidet mit fein gefälteltem Hemd, einem Mantel, dessen Kragen weit geöffnet ist, und mit Samtbarett, angetan mit den Amtsinsignien Zepter und Kette mit Wappenkleinod, dem von zwei Schwertern durchbohrten Reichsapfel, und einer weiteren Kette, auf die vier Münzen aufgezogen sind. An dieser ist ein Jagdpfeifchen und eine Toilettgarnitur befestigt. In der linken oberen Ecke des Stiches ist das Wappen noch einmal dargestellt, nun erweitert um eine Krone und ein Schriftband, auf dem die Buchstaben des Alphabets zu lesen sind. Diese Zusätze sind nicht Teil des von Johann von Leiden anderer reformatorischer Strömungen innerhalb ihrer Schriften zu diskutieren, vgl. Gruber 2018: 310, 321–323. 11 Die Idee des Königtums leitet sich hier aus alttestamentlichen Vorbildern ab, vgl. van Dülmen: 1974, 15; 20; ausführlicher zur theologischen Begründung des Königtums im Verständnis der Täufer vgl. List: 1973. In diesem Kontext ist auch die Vision zu sehen, aufgrund derer sich Johann Bockelson zum König ausrufen ließ und sich königliche Insignien zulegte, vgl. das Bekenntnis Johann Bockelsons von Leiden am 25. Juli 1553 in Dülmen, in Berichte der Augenzeugen über das Münsterische Wiedertäuferreich, (Berichte: 1965, 372). Auch andere Täufer hatten Visionen dieser Art und ließen sich königliche Insignien anfertigen. Nachgewiesen ist dies für Andreas Bader aus Augsburg, vgl. Schubert: 2008, 154–156. 12 Vgl. Geisberg: 1907, 26ff. Luckhardt dagegen bezeichnet die Auftragslage als unklar, vgl. Luckhardt: 1985b, 42. Zu Franz von Waldeck und der Kampf um Münster vgl. hier und im Folgenden Behr: 1996, 78–191.

88

Maria Lucia Weigel

Abb. 2: Heinrich Aldegrever, Bildnis Johann Bockelson van Leiden, 1536, Kupferstich, 31,6 × 22,6 cm

Reformationen – Pluralität im Bild?

89

geführten Wappens.13 Eine Schriftrolle in den Händen des Dargestellten trägt die Buchstaben D, E und F. Die rechte Hand stützt sich auf ein Büchlein, das mutmaßlich die Bibel darstellt. Die Darstellung wird am oberen Bildrand durch ein Feld mit Inschrift ergänzt. Diese lautet: „IOHAN VAN LEIDEN EYN KONINCK DER WEDERDOPER THO MONSTER WAEHRHAFTICH CONTER“. Die Inschrift auf der Tafel lautet: HAEC FACIES HIC CVLTVS ERAT CUM SEPTRA TENEREM REX αναβαπτιστων SED BREVE TEMPVS EGO HENRIVUS ALDEGREVER SVZATIENSIS FACIEBAT ANNO M D XXXVI. [Dies war mein Aussehen, dies der Schmuck, als ich das Zepter trug, ich der König der Wiedertäufer, doch nur für kurze Zeit. Heinrich Aldegrever aus Soest schuf [es] im Jahre 1536] (Übersetzung: Luckhardt: 1985b, 42).

Es folgt der Wahlspruch des Dargestellten: „GOTTES MACHT IST MYN CRACHT [Kraft]. “Es handelt sich hierbei um ein Memorialporträt.14 Dieser Gattung des Bildnisses liegt die Absicht zugrunde, dem Betrachter die in einem üblicherweise beigegebenen Text aufgeführten Taten des Dargestellten in seinem Bildnis noch einmal lebendig vor Augen zu stellen, um diesem ein ehrendes Andenken zu bewahren und den Eifer des Betrachters in der Nachahmung zu fördern. Durch den Einschub „SED BREVE TEMPVS“ wird das Bildnis hier jedoch in eine Vanitasdarstellung gewandelt. Dem stehen die aufwendige Ausstattung, die künstlerische Sorgfalt in der Wiedergabe der verschiedenartigen Stofflichkeiten – plissiertes Hemd, Brokatgewand, Bartlocken, schimmerndes Metall und Glas, in der plastischen Wiedergabe des vom Träger erfundenen Wappens links oben die Spiegelung eines Fensterkreuzes – ,die zur Ausarbeitung eines bildrhetorischen Apparates ebenso gehören wie die Inszenierung der Körperhaftigkeit durch Überschneiden des oberen und unteren Inschriftfeldes und durch Verschattung des Bildgrundes im Rücken der Person, keineswegs entgegen. In einem höheren moralischen Sinn wird die Vergänglichkeit und Nichtigkeit der bildlich in Szene gesetzten Machtanspräche dadurch umso eindrücklicher demonstriert.15 Der Künstler legt, so zeigt die Inschrift, Wert auf ein wahrhaftiges Konterfei. Aldegrever hatte Ende Juni oder im Juli 1535 Gelegenheit, den gefangengesetzten Täuferkönig im Haus Dülmen zu porträtieren. Er fertigte eine in London erhaltene Kreidezeichnung an, in der die Gesichtszüge 13 Das Aussehen des Wappens ist von einem Abdruck des Königssiegels und von einer auf 1534 datierten Zeichnung her bekannt, vgl. Dethlefs: 1983, 172 und Baußmann: 2000, 164–165. 14 Vgl. hier und im Folgenden Christin: 2005; Christin/Deschamp: 2011. 15 Im Sinne einer Amtsanmaßung werden bereits im 16. Jahrhundert in den Berichten über die Geschehnisse in Münster die Amtsinsignien des Täuferkönigs gedeutet, vgl. die detaillierte Schilderung bei Hermann von Kerssenbroch (1900: 651–656). Vgl. die deutsche Übersetzung bei van Dülmen: 1974, 158f. Die Intention der bildlichen Inszenierung wird von Fritz als Vanitas-Darstellung gedeutet, vgl. Fritz: 1969, 134–143; Luckhardt bettet sie in einen umfassenden Kontext anderer Vanitasdarstellungen ein, vgl. Luckhardt: 1985b, 19–25; bes. 22.

90

Maria Lucia Weigel

detailliert ausgeführt und mit Rot gehöht sind (vgl. Thier: 2000a, 162–163). Die bekannten Berichte über das Aussehen des Wiedertäufers dagegen heben weniger auf dessen Physiognomie als auf das Aussehen der Insignien ab, die dieser trug.16 Zwischen bildlicher Darstellung und textlicher Überlieferung treten in diesem Punkt Unterschiede zutage.17 Letztere bezeichnet das Zepter als mit goldenen Bändern beschlagenen Holzstab, die große Kette mit dem Wappen, der von zwei Schwertern durchbohrten Weltkugel als Symbol des weltumspannenden geistlichen und weltlichen Machtanspruchs, wird als doppelreihig umgelegt beschrieben und die seidene, hier als geflochtene Metallkette dargestellte Kette wird in der schriftlichen Überlieferung als von fünf statt von den dargestellten vier Münzen geziert benannt. Von der Vorzeichnung weicht der im Folgejahr angefertigte Kupferstich in Details ab, in voriger fehlen das Zepter und das Wappen links oben, die Schriftrolle zeigt die ersten Buchstaben des Alphabets, möglicherweise ein Verweis auf das Recht des Täuferkönigs, die unter seiner Herrschaft geborenen Kinder dem Alphabet folgend zu benennen.18 Der Künstler greift hier also nicht auf eine Vorlage zurück, der Stich ist seine Invention, wobei er in Details des Gewandes wohl auf einen Kupferstich von Barthel Beham Bezug nimmt (vgl. Thier: 2000a, 234). In bester humanistisch geprägter Bildnistradition, auf die die lateinisch-griechischen Inschriften bereits offensichtlich verweisen, verschränkt er Zitate visuell erlebbarer Wirklichkeit in der Wiedergabe des Materiellen mit erfundenen, jedoch wahrscheinlich erscheinenden Details in Physiognomie und Ausstattung, in deren meisterhafter Ausführung er sein künstlerisches Können demonstriert. Die Gestaltung des Wappens als transparente Kugel, in deren Innerem die Position der Schwertklingen sichtbar bleibt, ist dabei nur eine der Strategien, um die eigene Kunstfertigkeit unter Beweis zu stellen.19 Irritationen ruft das Bildnis hervor, weil es sich im decorum nicht von anderen Reformatorendarstellungen, wie dem vier Jahre später entstandenen LutherBildnis, unterscheidet. Allein aus dem textlichen Einschub und dem historischen Kontext der Entstehung erschließt sich die Bedeutung des Bildnisses. Es sind die Gegner, die den Täufer in dieser Weise der Nachwelt überliefern. Sie tun dies, indem sie den Verketzerten nicht als Gefangenen bar seiner Amtswürde dar16 Die Insignien wurden bei der Eroberung der Stadt durch die bischöflichen Truppen sichergestellt, vgl. Geisberg: 1907, 17 mit Verweis auf Kerssenbroch: 1899, 853. 17 Vgl. im Folgenden Luckhardt: 1985b, 42. Vgl. zur Beschreibung der Insignien Meister Heinrich Gresbecks Bericht von der Wiedertaufe in Münster, in: Berichte: 1965, 86f. 18 Vgl. Meister Heinrich Gresbecks Bericht von der Wiedertaufe in Münster, in Berichte: 1965, 156f. und Kerssenbroch: 1899, 659f. 19 Der Künstler positioniert sich damit im Hinblick auf den Kunstdiskurs seiner Zeit, zumal Aldegrevers Vorbild Dürer, dessen Graphiken in ganz Europa sofort nach Erscheinen rezipiert wurden, für seine in höchstem Maß augentäuschende Gestaltung von Stofflichkeiten gerühmt wurde, vgl. Strieder: 1978, 7–11; hier: 9.

Reformationen – Pluralität im Bild?

91

stellen. Sie erheben ihn im Anspruch auf historische Deutungshoheit gerade durch die ehrende Darstellung zum Exempel verwerflichen Handelns, indem sie die Diskrepanz zwischen angemaßter Macht und tatsächlichem Ausgang der Ereignisse möglichst groß erscheinen lassen. Die Darstellung hebt auf die Fallhöhe zwischen beiden ab und bedient sich damit einer weiteren, bildlich inszenierten rhetorischen Figur. Die gegenwärtige Wirklichkeit der Betrachter, die Kenntnis vom Schicksal des Dargestellten hatten, liefert dabei einen wichtigen Baustein in der Deutung des Bildes. Adressiert ist es an humanistisch gebildete Kreise, die in ihm das Gegenbild eines Tugendhelden wahrnahmen, das als abschreckendes Exempel erzieherische Wirkung haben konnte. Aldegrevers Bildnis des Johann Bockelson von Leiden wurde sowohl in der Druckgraphik der nachfolgenden Jahrhunderte, insbesondere in Porträtsammelwerken, als auch in der Malerei rezipiert, wobei die Inschriften nicht immer, gelegentlich auch verkürzt oder mit anderen Inschriften kombiniert wiedergegeben wurden. Der Aspekt des verwerflichen Handelns bleibt dabei, über Inschriften vermittelt, zumeist erhalten.20

3.2

Christoffel van Sichem d. Ä., Bildnis Thomas Müntzer, Kupferstich, um 1608

Eine vergleichbare bildrhetorische Strategie steht hinter dem Bildnis des Reformators Thomas Müntzer, das im Folgenden analysiert werden soll (Abb. 3). Auch von ihm sind aus der Zeit seines Lebens keine bildlichen Darstellungen bekannt (vgl. Vogler: 2010, 9). Das Kupferstich-Porträt entstand zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt; Christoffel van Sichem d. Ä. veröffentlichte es in seinem Werk „Historische beschryvinge ende affbeeldingeder voor neemste hooftketteren“, gedruckt im Jahr 1608 in Amsterdam. Zeitgleich wurden auch eine deutsche und eine lateinische Ausgabe herausgegeben.21 Der Bildnisstich gilt als erste Darstellung des Thüringer Reformators. Die Auswahl der in dem Werk Dargestellten – auch die Bildnisse der Münsteraner Wiedertäufer nach der Vorlage Aldegrevers sind enthalten – geht wahrscheinlich auf einen Bericht des hauptsächlich in Antwerpen tätigen calvinistischen Reformators Hermannus Moded über die wie20 Vgl. die Übersicht bei Thier: 2000b, 118–135 und ebenda, Katalog (Nr. 163–205). Wurde das Bildnis nicht mit Inschriften versehen, so tritt der moralisierende Aspekt gelegentlich in den Hintergrund. Eine solche Ausnahme, weil ausnahmslos Ehrentitel aufführend, bildet ein Porträt des Täuferkönigs von der Hand eines niederländischen Meisters in Schwerin, Vgl. Hegner: 1993, 186–193. 21 Beschryvinge: 1608. Vgl. die Übersicht über die Auflagen des Werkes bei Franz: 1935, 21–37, hier: 34f. Zur Biographie des Künstlers vgl. Henkel: 1999, 585f.

92

Maria Lucia Weigel

dertäuferischen Sekten von 1603 zurück, der nicht illustriert ist.22 Einen feinen Unterschied macht der Stecher im Zusatz „invenit“ bzw. „excudit“ zu seiner Signatur. Da die Darstellung Müntzers mit letzterem versehen ist, wird die Existenz einer nicht bekannten älteren Vorlage für das Bildnis angenommen. Unterhalb der Darstellung fügte Sichem jeweils einen Text hinzu, der sich auf den Dargestellten bezieht. Die Texte sind einer Schrift des calvinistisch geprägten Reformators Guy de Brès entnommen. Sie trägt den Titel „De wortel, den oorspronck ende het fondament der wederdooperen, oft Herdooperen van onsen tijde“, gedruckt in Dordrecht im Jahr 1570.23 Thomas Müntzer stammte aus Stollberg im Harz, hatte sich nach Theologiestudium und mehreren Anstellungen als Schullehrer zwischen 1517 und 1519 in Wittenberg aufgehalten und war nach kurzen Aufenthalten in Zwickau und Prag im kursächsischen Allstedt als Pastor angestellt, bevor er wegen seines radikalen Verständnisses der Reformation nach Mühlhausen fliehen mußte und dort den Bauernaufstand unterstützte.24 Nach der Schlacht bei Frankenhausen im Jahr 1525 wurde er in der Festung Heldrungen gefangengesetzt, gefoltert und am 27. Mai des Jahres vor den Toren der Stadt Mühlhausen enthauptet. Die Darstellung zeigt den Reformator in Gelehrtenschaube und pelzbesetztem Übergewand sowie mit Barett, somit in universitärer Kleidung, in Halbfigur hinter einer Brüstung, auf der ein Buch aufliegt, in dessen Seiten Müntzer blättert. Die Brüstung trägt die Inschrift: „TOMAS MVNCER PREDIGER ZV ALSTET IN DVRINGEN“. Im oberen Teil des Bildgrundes, hinter einer Mauer, öffnet sich rechterhand ein Landschaftsausblick, während sich links ein Turm mit Schloss und vergittertem Fenster erhebt. Hinter letzterem ist schemenhaft eine Gestalt erkennbar. In die Landschaft sind mehrere Gruppen waffentragender Personen platziert, auf einer Anhöhe im Mittelgrund ist eine Enthauptungsszene dargestellt. Zu der in der bekannten, für Reformatorendarstellungen etablierten Bildsprache wiedergegebenen Gestalt Müntzers und der biographisch informativen Bildunterschrift bildet die Hintergrundszene einen starken Kontrast. Sie stellt als narrative Ausführung der letzten Lebensstationen des Verketzerten ein mahnendes Exempel dar, das das schlechte Ende in Gefangenschaft und Hinrichtung augenfällig illustriert.25 Die Bildinschrift verweist jedoch auf eine Zeit vor dieser 22 Moded: 1603. Vgl. hier und im Folgenden Vogler: 2010, 15f. 23 De Brès: 1570. Es handelt sich um eine niederländische Übersetzung der ursprünglich in Frankreich erschienenen Schrift La racine, source et fondement des Anabaptistes ou rebaptisez de nostre temps, Rouen 1565, vgl. Vogler: 2010, 16. 24 Zur Biographie Müntzers vgl. Bräuer/Vogler: 2016. 25 Bräuer/Vogler (2016, 487–493) führen reiches Quellenmaterial auf, das auch das Einsetzen gegnerischer Propaganda zu Lebzeiten Müntzers und nach seinem Ende offenlegt. Die später entstandenen Bildnisse des Reformators, die ihn im Sinne eines Memorialporträts zeigen und

Reformationen – Pluralität im Bild?

93

Abb. 3: Christoffel van Sichem d. Ä., Bildnis Thomas Müntzer, 1608, Kupferstich, Aus: Historische beschryvinge ende affbeeldingeder voor neemste hooftketteren, Amsterdam 1608, 17,3 × 12,7 cm

Wendung, hier wird Müntzer noch als Prediger in Allstedt, nicht als Bauernführer in Mühlhausen bezeichnet. Wahrscheinlich ist, dass der mutmaßlich protestantische Sichem die Darstellung der Person der vermuteten älteren, nicht auf das Ketzertum des Dargestellten hin ausgedeuteten Vorlage entnahm und die Elemente im Hintergrund hinzufügte, um dem Leser der Schrift die Folgen der Abweichung vom rechten Glauben vor Augen zu führen, vgl. Vogler: 2010, 16). Lediglich dieser Teil des Bildes also wendet die Darstellung ins Negative. Einige Rezeptionen des Stiches gehen dagegen weiter und greifen unmittelbar in die sein Handeln als abschreckendes Beispiel vor Augen führen, erweitern diese literarische Tradition um eine visuelle Komponente, wobei die Bildtradition der Porträtsammelwerke formal auf anderen Quellen fußt, vgl. Pelc: 2002, 7–21; 51–63; 108–111.

94

Maria Lucia Weigel

Darstellung der Person ein.26 In einer von ihnen, erschienen in Theobald Zacharias‘ „Der Alten und Neuen Schwärmer Widertäufferischer Geist“, verlegt in Köthen im Jahr 1701, ist sowohl die Inschrift erweitert zu: THOMAS MÜNTZER, / STOLBERGENSIS, PASTOR ALSTED[ensis,] / ARCHIFANATICUS, PATRONUS ET CAPITANEUS / SEDITIOSORUM RUSTICORUM, / DECOLLATUS Anno 1525. [Thomas Müntzer aus Stollberg, Pfarrer von Allstedt, Erzfanatiker, Schirmherr und Anführer der aufständischen Bauern, enthauptet im Jahr 1525] (Übers. d. Verf.)

als auch das Buch mit einer verhöhnenden Devise versehen: „Pietas | et / Paupertas | Simula / ta (Geheuchelte Frömmigkeit und Armut)“.27

3.3

Anonym, Bildnis Andreas Bodenstein, genannt Karlstadt, Radierung, Mitte 17. Jahrhundert

Auch die von einem unbekannten Künstler wohl um die Mitte des 17. Jahrhunderts geschaffene Darstellung Andreas Bodensteins, die am Schluss dieser Untersuchung stehen soll, lässt auf eine Verortung in einem Milieu schließen, das den Auswirkungen einer radikalen reformatorischen Haltung nicht gewogen war (Abb. 4). Es existiert jedoch neben einem im Folgenden vorzustellenden Holzschnittporträt des Reformators zumindest ein Exemplar einer bildlichen Darstellung, ebenfalls von unbekannter Hand, die mutmaßlich Bodenstein wiedergibt, in Schaube und Barett in Halbfigur, in den Händen ein Buch haltend.28 Deren bildliches Repertoire entspricht damit dem für die Wittenberger Reformatoren um Luther etablierten Bildvokabular. Ein namentlich bezeichnetes Bildnis Bodensteins in seinem 55. Lebensjahr in Holzschnitt-Technik findet sich unter der Überschrift „REVERENDVS IN CHRISTO“ auf einem Basler Gedenkblatt von 1541/42 auf den Tod des Reformators.29 Unterhalb des Bildes ist ein dreispaltig gesetztes Trauergedicht des Basler Humanisten Heinrich Pantaleon eingefügt, das dieser für seinen Lehrer 26 Alle bekannten Müntzer-Bildnisse gehen auf den Stich von Sichem zurück, wobei die bildliche Argumentation teilweise durch Auslassung der Hintergrundszene verkürzt sein kann. Das Motiv des Buches mit verhöhnender Inschrift erfuhr wiederum eine eigene Rezeptionsgeschichte, vgl. die Übersicht bei Franz: 1935, 33–37 und Tf. I–IV. 27 Zacharias: 1701. Vgl. Mortzfeld: 2001, 76, Nr. A 14659, dort auch die Übersetzung; vgl. die Abbildung in Mortzfeld: 1991, 350, Nr. A 14659. 28 Es handelt sich um einen Kupferstich mit Radierung, der auf der Druckplatte nicht mit Namen des Dargestellten versehen, jedoch in handschriftlicher Bildunterschrift als „Andreas Carlstadius“ bezeichnet ist, Basel, Universitätsbibliothek, Graphische Sammlung [Portr Falk 176], vgl. Zorzin: 2014, 4–24; Abb. 1, 20. 29 Stadt- und Universitätsbibliothek Bern, Hospinian 7. Vgl. Bubenheimer: 2001, 15–48, Abb. 1, 19.

Reformationen – Pluralität im Bild?

95

Abb. 4: Anonym, Bildnis Andreas Bodenstein, gen. Karlstadt, Mitte 17. Jahrhundert, Kupferstich, 17,6 × 14,5 cm

und Freund verfaßt hatte. Das Bildnis zeigt Bodenstein in Halbfigur nach rechts vor neutralem Grund. Der Reformator ist barhäuptig dargestellt, jedoch mit Vollbart. Er trägt eine Schaube, deren Stoff-Fülle die blockhafte, bildfüllende Erscheinung der Person unterstreicht. Die Arme liegen auf einer schmalen, mit dem unteren Bildrand zusammenfallenden Brüstung auf, die rechte Hand hält ein Buch. Das Bildnis ist Teil eines der humanistischen Tradition verpflichteten Epitaphs, in dem der Verstorbene geehrt und sein Wirken lobend hervorgehoben

96

Maria Lucia Weigel

wird. In der Bildsprache unterscheidet es sich ebenfalls nicht von Darstellungen der Reformatoren aus der Wittenberger Gruppe um Luther. Der mit der Priesterweihe versehene Reformator, aus dem fränkischen Karlstadt stammend und deshalb den Namen seiner Geburtsstadt als Beinamen führend, hatte unter anderem in Wittenberg studiert, war dort habilitiert worden und als Dozent an der theologischen Fakultät tätig.30 Bodenstein zählte zu den Anhängern Luthers und wurde während dessen Aufenthalt auf der Wartburg der wichtigste Vertreter der reformatorischen Bewegung in Wittenberg. Er predigte die Abschaffung der katholischen Messfeier, der Heiligenbilder sowie der Kirchenmusik, der Privatbeichte und des Zölibatzwangs. Mit seinem Einverständnis kam es im Februar 1522 zu Ausschreitungen bei der Zerstörung von Bildern in Wittenberger Kirchen und Klöstern, die bekanntlich von dem vom Rat der Stadt zu Hilfe gerufenen Luther beendet wurden.31 Bodenstein wurde mit Predigtverbot belegt, die Universität beschlagnahmte seine Schriften. Zeitweilig in Orlamünde als Pfarrer tätig, bewirtschaftete er Land, um seine Familie mit eigener Hände Arbeit zu ernähren. Auf Betreiben Luthers wurde Bodenstein schließlich aus Kursachsen ausgewiesen. Weitere Stationen seines Lebens waren Emden, Zürich und Basel. Die hier zu analysierende Radierung nimmt Bezug auf die Ereignisse um die Bildentfernung aus Wittenberger Kirchen im Februar des Jahres 1522, die in der protestantischen Kirchengeschichtsschreibung zu einem Gegenbild für die besonnene Haltung Luthers stilisiert wurden. Das Bildnis ist, wie im zuvor vorgestellten Porträt Müntzers von Sichem, um eine narrative Szene erweitert, um die Folgen von Bodensteins Wirken in einem Ereignis aufzuzeigen, das Teil des Narrativs protestantischer Kirchengeschichte lutherischer Prägung ist, dort jedoch ausnahmslos als wichtige Station von Luthers Wirken Aufnahme findet.32 Bodenstein ist vor dem links befindlichen Bogen einer Doppelarkade wiedergegeben und in den Vordergrund des Bildes gerückt, ihm vorgeblendet findet sich ein Inschriftfeld mit dem Text: „D[octor] ANDREAS BODENSTEIN. / sonst CARLSTADT, / auch Nachbar Anders genant.“ Die Inschrift verweist auf den Namen, den Bodenstein sich unter Verzicht auf den akademischen Titel während seiner Zeit in Orlamünde selbst gegeben hatte. Möglicherweise hängt die Darstellung des Reformators ohne Barett mit dieser Demutsbezeugung zusammen. Mit der rechten Hand, die aus seiner pelzbesetzten Schaube herausgestreckt ist, verweist er auf die Szene im Hintergrund. Dort, unter der rechten Arkade, 30 Zur Biographie des Reformators vgl. Bubenheimer: 1988, 649–657. 31 Zum Bildersturm in Wittenberg vgl. Schnitzler: 2000, 68–74. 32 Vgl. Krentz: 2014, 215–242. In diesem Zusammenhang kann auch das Rollenporträt Luthers von Lucas Cranach d. Ä. aus dem Jahr 1522, entstanden im Kontext von Luthers Rückkehr von der Wartburg nach Wittenberg und sowohl in Malerei als auch in Holzschnitt verbreitet, gedeutet werden als dasjenige des tatkräftigen Ordnungsstifters, vgl. Kaufmann: 2012, 293.

Reformationen – Pluralität im Bild?

97

spielen sich Szenen eines Bildersturms ab. Mehrere Personen, einige davon auf Leitern, sind damit beschäftigt, Bildnisse von den Wänden zu nehmen und zu zerschlagen, desgleichen wird mit einem mehrflügeligen Aufbau verfahren, der mit der Axt zerhauen wird. Diese Geschehnisse sind kompositorisch in einer Übereinanderstaffelung angeordnet, so dass ein gestalterisches Maximum an Bewegtheit erzielt wird. Diese Bildhälfte steht in Kontrast zu der statischen Darstellung des Reformators. Kann die Arkade hier als nobilitierendes Accessoire antiker Herkunft gedeutet werden, das sich bereits in Cranachs LutherBildnis von 1520 findet und als gängiges Attribut für Reformatorendarstellungen in die Bildtradition seit dem 16. Jahrhundert eingeht, so liegt ihre Bedeutung in der rechten Bildhälfte in der Kennzeichnung eines Kircheninneren. Die Bildunterschrift erscheint zunächst als neutrale Nennung der verschiedenen Namen, unter denen der Dargestellte bekannt ist. Sie kann jedoch als Baustein einer bildlichen Argumentation gelesen werden, die zum Ziel hat, die Diskrepanz zwischen demütiger Selbstpositionierung und den als Gewaltakte gedeuteten Bildentfernungen aufzuzeigen. Der Zeigegestus begründet den moralisierenden Unterton der Szene in Sinne eines Verweisens auf die eigenen, in diesem Fall unrühmlichen Taten. Die außer Kraft gesetzte Ordnung, in den Geschehnissen der rechten Bildhälfte sinnfällig in Szene gesetzt, ist ebenfalls in diesem Sinne als rhetorischer Topos zu deuten. In polemischen Darstellungen des 16. Jahrhunderts sind Ordnung und Unordnung als bildliche Symbole gesellschaftlicher Zustände zu lesen.33 In diesem Fall obsiegt die Unordnung, die hier über die bildrhetorische Einbindung in das Porträt zu einem moralischen Appel in der Darstellungstradition der Porträtsammelwerke gerät (vgl. Pelc: 2002, 22; 40; 52f). Es erscheint plausibel, auch dieses Bildnis Bodensteins als in der szenischen Erweiterung tendenziös ausgedeutete Interpretation eines älteren Darstellungstyps zu sehen, die den Reformator in dem für die lutherischen Reformatoren etablierten Typus des Gelehrten in Halbfigur mit auf der Brüstung aufliegenden Armen und Buch in den Händen wiedergaben. Diesem folgen die beiden zuvor diskutierten Bildnisse in Bern und Basel. Nimmt man an, dass das handschriftlich mit Namen versehene Kupferstichbildnis in Basel tatsächlich Bodenstein darstellte, so käme für dieses und das polemisierende Bildnis eine gemeinsame, nicht überlieferte Vorlage nach der älteren halbfigurigen Darstellungsweise in Betracht, entstand dasjenige in der Basler Bibliothek doch möglicherweise nach dem polemischen Blatt.34 Die Fältelung des Kragens wäre in der 33 Zum Symbolgehalt visualisierter Ordnung und Unordnung Vgl. Blank/Isaiaz/Lehmann: 2011, 9–24; bes. 18f. 34 Physiognomische Ähnlichkeit als Identifikationsmerkmal ist aus den eingangs des Beitrags genannten Gründen nicht ausreichend, weil sie keine verlässliche Bezugsgröße darstellt. Problematisch ist aus denselben Gründen Zorzins Identifikation eines gemalten Doppelbildnisses als früheste Darstellungen von Andreas Bodenstein und dessen Gattin Anna von

98

Maria Lucia Weigel

Rezeption im polemischen Blatt verunklärt und das Barett nicht übernommen. Die Haltung der Arme im Basler Blatt ähnelt derjenigen in dem polemischen Stich, zieht man eine seitenverkehrte Rezeption der hier angenommenen älteren Vorlage in einem der Blätter in Betracht. Im polemischen Blatt ist der rechte Arm von der pelzbesetzten Schaube verdeckt vor den Körper gelegt, im Basler Blatt befindet sich der bildparallel wiedergegeben linke Arm in derselben Position, wobei die leicht geöffnete, auf Bibel oder Gebetbuch abgelegte Hand im polemischen Blatt eine andere Deutung erfährt. Hier führt sie einen Verweisgestus aus, der kompositorisch zu der hinzugefügten Szene überleitet. Für einen Rezeptionsvorgang und gegen eine originäre Invention mag im Fall des Basler Blattes auch die anatomisch falsche Darstellung der rechten Hand sprechen. Leider bleibt der Entstehungskontext des szenisch erweiterten Bildnisses ebenso unbekannt wie derjenige seiner Verbreitung.

4.

Fazit

Die gezeigten Bildnisse von Vertretern anderer als der lutherischen und reformierten Reformationen teilen mit diesen ein und dieselbe Auffassung von Porträt. Selbst die Gegner bedienen sich dieser überkonfessionell gültigen Bildsprache in ihren Darstellungen der Verketzerten, indem sie diese abwandeln. Die adäquate Deutung der Darstellungen hebt auf den inschriftlich oder szenisch evozierten Kontext ab, der das verwerfliche Handeln und unrühmliche Ende der Dargestellten thematisiert, nicht aber auf eine anders geartete Bildsprache. Hier wie dort speist sich diese aus den humanistisch geprägten Darstellungsmodi, die zuerst im Kontext der Wittenberger Reformation Geltung erlangten. Interessant erscheint, dass sowohl im Fall des hier vorgestellten Bildnisses von Thomas Müntzer von der Hand Christoffel van Sichems als auch in Bezug auf das polemisierende Bildnis von Andreas Bodenstein die Existenz älterer Vorlagen vermutet werden kann, die die Dargestellten als gelehrte Männer in positiver Konnotation wiedergeben. Der Befund einer fehlenden Überlieferung lässt Rückschlüsse auf eine weniger offensive Bildpropaganda als diejenige zu, die im Umfeld der Wittenberger Reformation zutage tritt. Eine Verbreitung der Bildnisse der beiden Reformatoren erfolgte erst über Darstellungen, die offensichtMochau, indem das Hauptargument in der attestierten physiognomischen Ähnlichkeit mit dem Holzschnitt des Gedenkblattes aus dem Jahr 1541/42 besteht, Vgl. Zorzin: 2014, 9–11. Gleichwohl sind in den Gesichtszügen der dargestellten Personen im hier diskutierten Basler Kupferstich und der polemischen Darstellung Ähnlichkeiten festzustellen. Eine Datierung des Basler Stiches auf den Zeitraum vor 1541 ist nicht gesichert, Vgl. die Angabe bei Schnitzler: 2000, 70; Abb. 3. Dieses Datum bezeichnet lediglich das Todesjahr des Reformators. Der Stich kann zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt entstanden sein.

Reformationen – Pluralität im Bild?

99

lich im Auftrag ihrer Gegner entstanden. Auch bei dem Bildnis Johann Bockelsons von Leiden wird die Auftraggeberschaft des gegnerischen katholischen Bischofs Franz von Waldeck vermutet. In der von diesen Bildnissen ausgehenden Rezeptionsgeschichte – im Fall des Bodenstein-Bildnisses liegt sie im Dunkeln – wird die negative Konnotation auch in einer Neukontextualisierung mit wenigen Ausnahmen beibehalten.

Bibliographie Quellenschriften Berichte (1965), Berichte der Augenzeugen über das Münsterische Wiedertäuferreich, C.A. Cornelius (ed.), Münster: Aschendorff 1965. Beschryvinge (1608), Historische beschryvinge ende affbeeldinge der voor neemste hooftketteren, so van de catholijke ende christelijke kercke ghelijk als swermers ende dwaelgeesten verbannen […] sijn, enz. Desgelycken in druck also noyt (maer nu nieuw) wt ghegaen syn, ghemeerdt ende verbetert door C. V(an) S(ichem) A(msteold.), Amsterdam 1608. Guy de Brès (1570), De wortel, den oorspronck ende het fondament der wederdooperen, oft Herdooperen van onsen tijde, Dordrecht. Hermann a Kerssenbroch (1899), Anabaptistici furoris Monasterium inclitam Westphaliae metropolim evertentis historica narratio, in: H. Detmer (ed.), Kerssenbrochs Wiedertäufergeschichte, zweite Hälfte, Die Geschichtsquellen des Bisthums Münster 6, Münster: Druck und Verlag der Theisssing’schen Buchhandlung. Hermann a Kerssenbroch (1900), Anabaptistici furoris Monasterium inclitam Westphaliae metropolim evertentis historica narratio, in: H. Detmer (ed.), Kerssenbrochs Wiedertäufergeschichte, erste Hälfte, Die Geschichtsquellen des Bisthums Münster 5, Münster: Druck und Verlag der Theisssing’schen Buchhandlung. Hermannus Moded (1603), Grondich bericht, Van de eerste beghinselen der Wederdoopsche Seckten, Middelburg. Theobald Zacharias (1701), Der alten und neuen Schwärmer widertäufferischer Geist, das ist, Glaubwürdiger und historischer Bericht, was Jammer, Elend […] die alten Schwärmer und Widertäufer, gestifftet und angerichtet haben […], Köthen.

Sekundärliteratur Baussmann, E. (2000), Kat.-Nr. 61: Königswappen des Jan van Leiden, in: B. Rommé (ed.), Das Königreich der Täufer, Ausstellungskatalog Münster, 2 vol., Münster: Stadtmuseum Münster, 1: Reformation und Herrschaft der Täufer in Münster,164; 165 (Abb.). Behr, H.-J. (1996), Franz von Waldeck. Fürstbischof zu Münster und Osnabrück. Administrator zu Minden (1491–1553). Sein Leben in seiner Zeit. Teil 1: Darstellung, Westfälische Biographien 9, Münster: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung GmbH &Co.

100

Maria Lucia Weigel

Blank, A.-M./Isaiaz, V./ Lehmann, N. (2011), Einleitung: Visuelle Repräsentationen zwischen Konflikt und Stabilität, in: A.-M. Blank/V. Isaiaz/N. Lehmann (ed.), Bild – Macht – UnOrdnung. Visuelle Repräsentationen zwischen Konflikt und Stabilität, Frankfurt a.M.: Campus, 9–24. Boesch, P. (1949), Der Zürcher Apelles. Neues zu den Reformatorenbildnissen von Hans Asper, Zwing 9, 16–50. Bräuer, S./Vogler, G. (2016), Thomas Müntzer, Neu Ordnung machen in der Welt. Eine Biographie, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus. Bubenheimer, U. (1988), Art. “Karlstadt”, TRE 17, 649–657. Bubenheimer, U. (2001), Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt und seine fränkische Heimat, in: U. Bubenheimer/S. Oehmig (ed.), Querdenker der Reformation – Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt und seine frühe Wirkung, Würzburg: Religion & Kultur-Verlag, 15– 48. Christin, O. (2005), Mort et mémoire. Les portraits de réformateurs protestants au XVIe siècle, SZG 55, 383–400. Christin, O./Deschamp, M. (2011), Une politique du portrait? L’héritage calvinien, ARG 102, 195–219. Dethlefs, G. (1983), Kat.-Nr. 114: Königssiegel, in: H. Galen (ed.), Die Wiedertäufer in Münster, Ausstellungskatalog Münster, 4th ed., Münster: Aschendorff Münster, 172. Dülmen, R. van (ed.) (1974), Das Täuferreich zu Münster 1534–1535, Berichte und Dokumente, München: DTV. Franz, G. (1935), Die Bildnisse Thomas Müntzers, AKuG 25, 21–37. Fritz, R. (1969), Heinrich Aldegrevers Kupferstich “Jan van Leiden” als Vanitas-Symbol, Westfalen. Hefte für Geschichte, Kunst und Volkskunde 47, 134–143. Geisberg, M. (1907), Die Münsterischen Wiedertäufer und Aldegrever, Eine ikonographische und numismatische Studie, Studien zur deutschen Kunstgeschichte 76, Straßburg: Heitz. Gruber, Christiane (2018), Radikal-reformatorische Themen im Bild. Druckgraphiken der Reformationszeit (1520–1560), Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte 115, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Gülpen, I. van (2002), Der deutsche Humanismus und die frühe Reformations-Propaganda 1520–1526. Das Lutherporträt im Dienst der Bildpublizistik, Studien zur Kunstgeschichte 144, Hildesheim/Zürich/New York: Olms. Hegner, K. (1993), Die Bildnisse des Wiedertäuferkönigs Jan van Leiden und der Divara van Haarlem im Staatlichen Museum Schwerin, Westfalen 71, 186–193. Henkel, M. D. (1999), Art. “Christoffel I van Sichem”, in: U. Thieme/F. Becker/H. Vollmer (ed.), Allgemeines Lexikon der bildenden Künstler von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart, 30th ed., Leipzig: E. A. Seemann, 585f. Kaufmann, Th. (2012), Der Anfang der Reformation, Studien zur Kontextualität der Theologie, Publizistik und Inszenierung Luthers und der reformatorischen Bewegung, Spätmittelalter, Humanismus, Reformation 67, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Koch, Nadja J. (2007), Die Werkstatt des Humanisten. Zur produktionstheoretischen Betrachtungsweise der Künste in Antike und Früher Neuzeit, in: J. Knape (ed.), Bildrhetorik, Saecula Spiritalia 45, Baden-Baden: Koerner, 161–179. Kösters, K. (2002), Bilderstreit und Sinnenlust. Teil 1: Der Kampf um den rechten Glauben und die Druckgraphik, in: K. Kösters/R. Möller (ed.), Bilderstreit und Sinnenlust.

Reformationen – Pluralität im Bild?

101

Heinrich Aldegrever (1502–2002), Ausstellungskatalog Soest/Lippstadt/Unna, Unna: MediaPrint-Verlag GmbH, 15–32. Krentz, N. (2014), Ritualwandel und Deutungshoheit. Die frühe Reformation in der Residenzstadt Wittenberg (1500–1533), Spätmittelalter, Humanismus, Reformation 74, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Larsson, Lars Olof (2012), “…Nur die Stimme fehlt!“ Porträt und Rhetorik in der Frühen Neuzeit, Kiel: Ludwig. List, G. (1973), Chiliastische Utopie und radikale Reformation. Die Erneuerung der Idee vom tausendjährigen Reich im 16. Jahrhundert, Humanistische Bibliothek, Reihe 1, 14, München: Fink. Löcher, K. (1995), Humanistenbildnisse – Reformatorenbildnisse. Unterschiede und Gemeinsamkeiten, in: H. Boockmann/L. Grenzmann/B. Moeller/M. Staehelin (ed.) Literatur, Musik und Kunst im Übergang vom Mittelalter zur Neuzeit. Bericht über Kolloquien der Kommission zur Erforschung der Kultur des Spätmittelalters 1989 bis 1992, AAG III, 208, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 352–390. Lorenz, A. (2002), Heinrich Aldegrever. Kupferstiche aus der Sammlung des Westfälischen Landesmuseums für Kunst und Kulturgeschichte Münster. Auswahlkatalog und Ausstellung mit Kupferstichen aus der Sammlung des Museums zu seinem 500. Geburtstag, Münster: Landschaftsverband Westfalen-Lippe. Luckhardt, J. (1985a), Verewigung und Vergänglichkeit. Überlegungen zu den Wiedertäuferbildnissen Heinrich Aldegrevers, in: J. Luckhardt/A. Lorenz (ed.), Heinrich Aldegrever und die Bildnisse der Wiedertäufer, Ausstellungskatalog Münster, Münster: Westfälisches Landesmuseum für Kunst und Kulturgeschichte, 19–25. Luckhardt, J. (1985b), Kat.-Nr. 3: Jan van Leiden, 1536, in: J. Luckhardt/A. Lorenz (ed.), Heinrich Aldegrever und die Bildnisse der Wiedertäufer, Ausstellungskatalog Münster, Münster: Westfälisches Landesmuseum für Kunst und Kulturgeschichte 1985, 42. Luckhardt, J. (1985c), Kat.-Nr. 10: Martin Luther, 1540, in: J. Luckhardt/A. Lorenz (ed.), Heinrich Aldegrever und die Bildnisse der Wiedertäufer, Ausstellungskatalog Münster, Münster: Westfälisches Landesmuseum für Kunst und Kulturgeschichte 1985, 56. Ludwig, W. (1998), Das bessere Bildnis des Gelehrten, Ph. 142, 123–161. Metzger, Ch. (2010), “Wie man den Menschen erkennen soll“. Neue Überlegungen zu den Charakterstudien Hans Schäufelins, Jahrbuch des Kunsthistorischen Museums Wien 12, 8–39. Metzger, Ch. (2011), Eine Glaubensfrage. Auf der Suche nach der Wahrheit im Bildnis der Dürerzeit, in: S. Haag/Ch. Lange/Ch. Metzger/K. Schütz (ed.), Dürer – Cranach – Holbein. Die Entdeckung des Menschen. Das deutsche Porträt um 1500, Ausstellungskatalog Wien/München, München: Hirmer, 21–47. Mortzfeld, P. (ed.) (1991), Die Porträtsammlung der Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel, Reihe A, 16: Abbildungen, München: Saur. Mortzfeld, P. (ed.) (2001), Die Porträtsammlung der Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel, Biographische und bibliographische Beschreibungen mit Künstlerregister, 6, München: Saur. N.N. (2002), Heinrich Aldegrever – ein Künstler der Reformationszeit, in: K. Kösters/R. Möller (ed.), Bilderstreit und Sinnenlust. Heinrich Aldegrever (1502–2002), Ausstellungskatalog Soest/Lippstadt/Unna, Unna: MediaPrint-Verlag GmbH, 5f.

102

Maria Lucia Weigel

Niehr, K. (2003), ad vivum – al vif. Begriffs- und kunstgeschichtliche Anmerkungen zur Auseinandersetzung mit der Natur in Mittelalter und früher Neuzeit, in: P. Dilg (ed.), Natur im Mittelalter. Konzeptionen – Erfahrungen – Wirkungen, Akten des 9. Symposiums des Mediävistenverbandes, Marburg, 14.–17. März 2001, Berlin: AkademieVerlag, 472–485. Pelc, M. (2002), Illustrium imagines. Das Porträtbuch der Renaissance, SMRT 88, Leiden/ Boston/Köln: Brill. Reisser, U. (1997), Physiognomik und Ausdruckstheorie der Renaissance. Der Einfluß charakterologischer Lehren auf Kunst und Kunsttheorie des 15. und 16. Jahrhunderts, Beiträge zur Kunstwissenschaft 69, München: Scaneg. Rensselaer, W. Lee (1940), Ut Pictura Poesis. The Humanistic Theory of Painting, Art Bulletin, 22, 197–269. Rietschel, Ch. (1983), Lutherbilder des 16. bis 19. Jahrhunderts, in: K. Harlinghausen (ed.), Luther im Porträt. Druckgraphik 1550–1900, Stadt Bad Oeynhausen/Marburg an der Lahn: Jonas, 5–20. Schnitzler, N. (2000), Wittenberg 1522 – Reformation am Scheideweg?, in: C. Dupeux/P. Jezler/J. Wirth (ed.), Bildersturm. Wahnsinn oder Gottes Wille? Ausstellungskatalog Bern/Straßburg/München: Wilhelm Fink, 68–74. Schubert, A. (2008), Täufertum und Kabbalah. Augustin Bader und die Grenzen der Radikalen Reformation, QFRG 81, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus. Sörries, R. (1996), Die Ikonographie Martin Luthers. Der Reformator in der Kunst vom 16. bis zum 20. Jahrhundert, in: H. Eidam/G. Seib (ed.), “Er fühlt der Zeiten ungeheuren Bruch und fest umklammert er sein Bibelbuch…”. Zum Lutherkult im 19. Jahrhundert, Berlin: Schelzky & Jeep, 23–53. Strieder, P. (1978), Einführung, in: P. Strieder (ed.), Vorbild Dürer. Kupferstiche und Holzschnitte Albrecht Dürers im Spiegel der europäischen Druckgraphik des 16. Jahrhunderts, Ausstellungskatalog Nürnberg, München: Prestel, 7–11. Thier, B. (2000a), Kat.-Nr. 60: Jan van Leiden als König, in: B. Rommé (ed.), Das Königreich der Täufer, Teil 1: Reformation und Herrschaft der Täufer in Münster, Ausstellungskatalog Münster, Münster: Stadtmuseum. Thier, B. (2000b), „gantz warhafftig abkonterfeyt”. Die münsterischen Täufer in der bildlichen Darstellung und künstlerischen Auseinandersetzung,“ in B. Rommé (ed.), Das Königreich der Täufer, Ausstellungskatalog Münster, Teil 2: Die münsterischen Täufer im Spiegel der Nachwelt, Münster: Stadtmuseum, 2000, 118–135. Vogler, G. (2010), Thomas Müntzer in einer Bildergeschichte. Eine kulturhistorische Dokumentation, SVRG 211, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus. Warnke, M. (1984), Cranachs Luther. Entwürfe für ein Image, Frankfurt/Main: Fischer. Zorzin, A. (2014), Ein Cranach-Porträt des Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, ThZ 70, 4– 24.

Graeme Chatfield

Christendom as Luther Understood It, and the Papacy and Anabaptists Misunderstood It

Much has been written about Martin Luther’s ecclesiology, and his ‘two kingdoms’ theology, yet little focused attention has been given to his understanding of Christendom. Neither Carl Braaten (1998) nor Oswald Bayer (2008) even list Christendom in their indexes, and William Wright (2010) makes only two passing references to Christendom in his work on Luther’s two kingdoms. Mark Greengrass, in his discussion on Christendom, focused on Martin Luther’s use of the term in the 1520 treaties On the Papacy in Rome Against the Most Celebrated Romanist in Leipzig, and suggests that Luther used the term “interchangeably with ‘Church’ and ‘Christian community’” (2014, 6). Greengrass appears to have uncritically accepted the view of Luther scholars such as Bernhard Lohse, that Christendom is a term subsumed under the term church, and hence not a term that warrants independent investigation (1987, 127). However, Eric and Ruth Gritsch, translators and editors of the Fortress Press edition of On the Papacy in Rome insist that in that particular work Luther consistently distinguished between four entities: “‘Christendom’ (Christenheit), ‘church’ (Kirche), and ‘community’ or ‘congregation’ (Gemeyne) and ‘assembly’ (Vorsamlung).” (LW, vol. 39, 57, n. 9). This claim challenges the view of Greengrass and inspired the investigation that follows. Digital copies of the 55 volumes of the English translation of Luther’s works were surveyed for the word ‘Christendom’, and the results analyzed.1 While it is acknowledged that this is not an exhaustive exploration of the topic, the preliminary results do suggest that Luther did, over the course of his life, differentiate between Christendom, the church, and the ‘two kingdoms’. He also used his understanding of Christendom to clearly separate himself from the Papacy and the Anabaptists.

1 This is Pelikan/Lehman/Brown (ed.), Luther’s Works, St. Louis: Concordia/Philadelphia: Muehlenberg/Fortress, digitized in 1999 and available through Logos Bible Works. They will be referenced as: LW.

104

Graeme Chatfield

The starting point is Luther’s polemical tract On the Papacy in Rome, written in German “to teach laymen something about Christendom” (LW, vol. 39, 57). Luther was responding to a German language tract from Augustine Alveld who had pressed the claim of the Papacy to have “actual power over all of Christendom” (LW, vol. 39, 57). Alveld supported Johannes Eck’s position enunciated at the Leipzig debate in July 1519 defending papal primacy. In response to Eck’s position Luther not only rejected papal primacy, but also the inerrancy of church councils, and asserted the primacy of Scripture (sola Scriptura) as the final authority for Christians in matters of faith. In the debate with Alveld, Luther teased out his understanding of authority in relation to what he understood as God’s ordained order in society. In this tract Luther identifies Christendom as one such ordained order in society, as well as kingdoms (God ordained human government), and Holy Mother church (God’s spiritually gifted institution established to raise the children of God while they live on earth). Alveld argued that “Every community on earth, if it is not to disintegrate, must have a physical head under Christ the true head. Since all of Christendom is a single community on earth, it must have a single head who is the pope” (LW, vol. 39, 62). Luther attacks Alveld’s argument on three fronts. First, it is false to “attempt to guard or to base God’s order upon reason, unless previously it has been grounded in and illumined by faith” (LW, vol. 39, 63), as it promotes human reason above faith. Second, Luther cites many examples of communities on earth that have more than one head and do not disintegrate. Third, he provides his definition of Christendom which claims ‘Christendom’ or ‘Christian community’ is not equal to any other worldly community, for it is essentially spiritual in nature (LW, vol. 39, 65). “Muscovites, the white Russians, the Greeks, the Bohemians, and many other great nations … all of them believe like us, baptize like us, preach like us, live like us” (LW, vol. 39, 57). While they are not part of the Papacy’s Christendom, they are neither heretics nor schismatics, but part of spiritual Christendom and, Luther asserts, may be “better Christians than we are” (LW, vol. 39, 58). In 1544, Luther extended the location of true Christians to include “India, Persia, and the whole Orient” (LW, vol. 39, 271). For Luther, Christendom was the spiritual gathering of all people with true faith, not a temporally located gathering. Christendom: [A]ccording to Scripture, is …an assembly of all the people on earth who believe in Christ, as we pray in the Creed, “I believe in the Holy Spirit, the communion of saints.” This community or assembly means all those who live in true faith, hope, and love. Thus the essence, life, and nature of Christendom is not a physical assembly, but an assembly of hearts in one faith, as St Paul says in Ephesians 4 [:5], “One baptism, one faith, one Lord”. Accordingly, regardless of whether a thousand miles separates them physically, they are still called one assembly in spirit, as long as each one preaches, believes, hopes, loves, and lives like the other (LW, vol. 39, 65).

Christendom as Luther Understood It, and Papacy and Anabaptists Misunderstood It 105

However, even though Luther used the term ‘church’ in relation to Christendom, he insists the two are not to be confused: [W]e shall call the two churches by two distinct names. The first, which is natural, basic, essential, and true, we shall call “spiritual, internal Christendom.” The second, which is man-made and external, we shall call “physical, external Christendom”. Not that we want to separate them from each other; rather, it is just as if I were talking about a man and called him “spiritual” according to his soul, and “physical” according to his body, or as the Apostle is accustomed to speak of an “internal” and “external” man (Rom 7:22– 23). So, too, the Christian assembly is a community united in one faith according to the soul, although, according to the body, it cannot be assembled in one place since every group of people is assembled in its own place (LW, vol. 39, 70).

Luther contended that Alveld demonstrated the fundamental error in the Papacy’s defense of papal primacy, when the Papacy identified Christendom with a “spiritual estate”, the clergy, relying on the external, non-Scriptural based act of ‘anointing. For Luther, this is adding human actions and laws to faith, and faith alone should be the basis for inclusion in Christendom. Similarly, when the Papacy designates “houses that are built for worship” as spiritual goods, to differentiate them from ‘worldly’ goods, it again confuses categories (LW, vol. 39, 70). Christendom is essentially spiritual and internal. Like the Kingdom of God, or Christ’s Kingdom, it has been separated by Christ himself “from all physical and external places and locations and given a spiritual place” (LW, vol. 39, 66). It cannot be gathered into one physical place, and its true members are known only to God. For Luther, a key feature distinguishing Christendom from the ‘church’ is that the church can be gathered together into a physical place and identified. Individual communities of people assembled in one place are the outward expression of the internal unity they have through faith in Christ. What identifies the external church, in which true spiritual Christians may be found are “baptism, the sacrament, and the Gospel … signs by which the existence of the church in the world can be noticed externally” (LW, vol. 39, 74–75). When engaging the Papacy on the matter of the head of Christendom, Luther categorically states: “it is clear that on earth there is no head of spiritual Christendom other than Christ alone” (LW, vol. 39, 72). By contrast external Christendom has various estates that act as heads of “an assembly in a house, or a parish, a bishopric, an archbishopric, or a Papacy” (LW, vol. 39, 69). These “heads” received their authority based on Canon law and human law not through faith (LW, vol. 39, 70–71). Luther also rejects the contention that the Pope is head of Christendom when he acts as Vicar of Christ on earth. According to Luther, it is impossible for the pope to be a vicar, since a vicar must instill in a regent’s subjects the will of the regent; something the pope cannot do. It is the will of Christ to instill faith, hope and love, and all grace with virtue in Christians, but

106

Graeme Chatfield

this is something that is impossible for any human being to do (LW, vol. 39, 72). He further challenges the authority of the pope by stating that “according to divine order all bishops are equal and occupy the place of the apostles” (LW, vol. 39, 74). He based this view on his understanding that since all the apostles are equal, and that the bishops are the successors to the apostles, the pope as a bishop is also equal to all other bishops (LW, vol. 39, 87). The pope may be bishop of Rome, but in Luther’s view, he is only one bishop, equal to all other bishops. In 1521 Luther expanded on his understanding of the relationship of bishops and apostles in his exegesis of Ps 68:12: “The kings of the hosts will be friendly toward one another, and the adornment of the house will divide the spoil” (LW, vol. 13, 13). Christ as “‘Lord of hosts’ […] continuously wages war with the Gospel against the devil, the world, and the flesh”, initially and most successfully through his kings, the apostles. The apostles’ success was based on their harmony, their oneness of mind, love for one another, and unity in preaching the same message of faith. “But after the days of the apostles, the bishops soon lost this harmony” (LW, vol. 13, 13). The bishops of his own day he derided as “all sham and pretense, devoid of all earnestness and sincerity”. The “adornment of the house” he equated with holy Mother Church, through whom, “the Gospel … magnificently adorns Christ’s home with many children” (LW, vol. 13, 13). To each she ordains peculiar gifts – “some for prophecy, others for teaching, others for administrative duties, others for general service to the poor” as “described by St Paul in 1 Cor 12:7–11” (LW, vol. 13, 13). In his exposition of verse 15, he made it clear that it is through the Holy Spirit that the variety of gifts have been apportioned (LW, vol. 13, 18). Are there offices specific to spiritual Christendom? In sermons on 1 Pet in 1522 Luther explored the office of priest. He stated: Before God, however there is no distinction, and only a few are selected from the whole group to administer the office in the stead of the congregation. They all have this office, but nobody has any more authority than the other person has. Therefore nobody should come forward of his own accord and preach in the congregation. No, one person must be chosen from the whole group and appointed. If desired, he may be deposed (LW, vol. 30, 55).

The role of priest is derived from Christ’s role as High Priest. In God’s eyes, all true Christians may fulfil the role of priest when they undertake the three tasks of a true priesthood “to offer spiritual sacrifices, to pray for the congregation, and to preach” (LW, vol. 30, 55). However, in the gathered congregation, only those appointed by the whole group acting on their behalf may fulfil these functions. In this discussion, Luther clearly indicated an underlying axiom of his understanding of order and authority: in the spiritual realm, before God all Christians are priests and equal before God. In the external realm, all Christians may per-

Christendom as Luther Understood It, and Papacy and Anabaptists Misunderstood It 107

form the roles of a priest, but when a congregation chooses some to act in their stead, only those chosen may undertake the external functions of priest within the congregation. However, this delegation of function is not to be understood as granting the ‘priest’ authority over the rest of the congregation. When discussing 1 Pet 2: “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people,” Luther stated: For it must be our aim to restore the little word “priests” to the common use which the little word ‘Christians’ enjoys. For to be a priest does not belong in the category of an external office; it is exclusively the kind of office that has dealings before God.

The same thing is true with regard to the fact that we are all kings. “Priests” and “kings” are all spiritual names just as “Christians,” “saints,” and “church” are (LW, vol. 13, 63). In his sermon on 2 Pet 1:12 Luther expounded on the office of ‘teacher’ within Christendom, and identified ‘exhortation’ as a sub category of the teaching office: For there is a twofold office in Christendom, as St Paul declares in Rom 12:7–8: “He who teaches, in his teaching; he who exhorts, in his exhortation.” One teaches when the foundation of faith is laid and proclaimed to those who know nothing about it. To exhort, however, or, as Peter says here, “to remind”, is to preach to those who already know and have heard it, to persist, and to rouse them not to lose sight of it but to continue and to make progress (LW, vol. 30, 160–161).

Later in the section on 2 Pet 2:1 Luther distinguished between true and false teachers noting that those who introduce false teaching into Christendom are false teachers, but not apostles or prophets. That teachers had been designated ‘doctores’ was due to God’s special arrangement, so that Peter could be easily understood to mean the doctors of the schools. These ‘false teachers’ are the ones responsible for the creation of ‘sects’ and divisions within Christendom, which they bring in secretly, not by denying the truth of the Gospel, but by adding to it and demanding their additions are law to be obeyed and believed, thus raising their additions above faith, the only true basis for inclusion in Christendom (LW, vol. 30, 169). In his 1537 sermons on John’s Gospel, Luther elaborated on the theme of the apostles and their successors, the bishops. As shown above, in Christendom, the apostles were in harmony with one another and with Christ, but their successors, the bishops, were unable to maintain that harmony. Nevertheless, if a bishop’s proclamation of the Gospel remained at one with that preached by the apostles, Luther considered them to remain part of spiritual Christendom. Now he makes it clear, that whether the life of a bishop is good or evil, if their words and works are “those of Christ”, then theirs is a valid ministry in spiritual Christendom (LW,

108

Graeme Chatfield

vol. 24, 66). Here Luther applies to bishops, and church fathers his fundamental understanding of a Christian as simul iustus et peccator. While the titles for the office of apostle, prophet, preacher, teacher, priest, and king are used in both spiritual Christendom and external Christendom, according to Luther, in external Christendom their meanings have been corrupted, and those who occupy the office may be either a true or false Christian. In spiritual Christendom, only those who are true Christians occupy these offices, and they are only known to God. While God foresaw the ‘injury and decay of Christendom’ (LW, vol. 21, 56) that false teachers would cause due to the lack of diligence on the part of true bishops and preachers, God did not intervene to stop this happening, since suffering is to be expected in Christendom. Luther expands on this theme of suffering in his sermons on The Sermon on the Mount. When Christians, especially those appointed to ‘offices’ remain faithful to their task of ‘salting’ the old Adam, they can expect to be challenged and suffer. Where the temporal rulers who should protect the preaching of the Gospel, reject the Gospel, Christendom can expect to be governed by tyrants worse than those who previously persecuted Christendom (LW, vol. 21, 227). Knowing that this suffering, and the establishment of sects, are to be expected, Christians should not be discomforted, but paradoxically comforted, since such suffering exercises faith, a faith once gained leaves the Christian ‘confident and assured of the eternal outcome’ (LW, vol. 21, 249). Such faith overcomes empirical evidence, or reason, that asserts Christ does not have authority over all creation, a view reinforced in his 1535 sermons on Psalm 110 (LW, vol. 13, 241– 242). Such faith also reinforces for the Christian that they are spiritually in Christ, and cannot truly be touched by the devil, or be hurt or suffer, just as Christ who is now seated at the right hand of the Father cannot be affected by suffering (LW, vol. 21, 262). For Luther, understanding how a text of Scripture is to be correctly categorized, is fundamental to correct understanding. To confuse categories is to promote error. For him, spiritual Christendom comprises all on earth who believe in Christ, who pray the Creed, who live in true faith, hope and love, yet in the final analysis are known only to God. The Papacy in its attempt to claim temporal and spiritual authority over Christendom fall into this error with great detriment to Christendom. In his 1530 sermons on the Sermon on the Mount, Luther identifies the Anabaptists as a second group that confused categories regarding Christendom. While the Papacy wanted to rule spiritual Christendom through secular law, the Anabaptists wanted to rule the secular world with the spiritual law of the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount. This failure to “distinguish properly between the secular and the spiritual”, in Luther’s view, inevitably lead the Anabaptists to focus on “the sin and the piety that are manifest

Christendom as Luther Understood It, and Papacy and Anabaptists Misunderstood It 109

in outward works” (LW, vol. 21, 105), rather than the inner spiritual reality that determines membership in Christendom. When explaining the phrase “Till I Make Thy Enemies Thy Footstool” from Ps 110:1, Luther elaborated the errors of the Papacy and the Anabaptists regarding Christendom, church and kingdom: Thus, on the basis of this verse, we have briefly and yet sufficiently explained who this King is, what kind of might and power He has, and what kind of government and dominion He possesses – namely, Christendom on earth – what it is, of whom it consists, and what shall happen to it. Christendom will stand and remain as long as the world stands, because Christ sits above, in opposition to the world and the devil, as we say in the Creed:2 “I believe a holy, Christian Church”. Under the cross and suffering the church is defended and preserved miraculously by the hidden power of God. Christendom really consists of those who suffer persecution because they bear the name of this Lord, believe and confess Him. The devil and the world are their enemies for His sake. One must not make out of this the kind of kingdom or seek the sort of church that may be governed on earth by external secular power. The pope does this and praises it as the true church government. The Anabaptists and similar erring spirits dream that before the Last Day all the enemies of the church will be physically exterminated and a church assembled which shall consist of pious Christians only; they will govern in peace, without any opposition or attack. But this text clearly and powerfully says that there are to be enemies continuously as long as this Christ reigns on earth. And certain it is, too, that death will not be abolished until the Last Day, when all His enemies will be exterminated with one blow (LW, vol. 13, 263–264).

The three terms: Christendom, kingdom, and church, share some commonalities in Luther’s theology. All three are located in the physical world and have a spiritual reality where the true members are part of that reality only by faith in Christ, and these true members are only known to God. However, there are differences between them. Christendom is more commonly used in the context of the cosmological struggle between God and the Devil to distinguish between the people who are truly God’s people in the temporal world, and all who are not. While people may look to identify Christendom, they cannot be certain. Where people identify the Gospel preached, Baptism performed, and the Sacrament administered, there is Christendom, but they cannot know for sure who are its members. Christendom cannot be gathered in one place, nor narrowed to one location. When Luther speaks of the Kingdom of God, or the related idea of two kingdoms, the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of men, he most frequently locates this in the context of the divine ordinance of God for the governing of the world. Temporal authority has been established by God for the protection of the 2 For a discussion on Luther’s replacement of ‘catholic’ with ‘Christian’ in the Creed, see Bagchi: 2012, 161–176.

110

Graeme Chatfield

poor and the promotion of peace, whether they be Christian or not. Where true Christians are the temporal rulers they protect those who preach the Gospel, and support society following the Ten Commandments. The spiritual kingdom is scattered throughout the temporal kingdoms of the world, and is ruled by Christ who is Lord of all the world. Those with faith accept this even when reason and experience are to the contrary. Temporal rulers may or may not accept that Christ is their king, but for Luther true Christians will follow their King Jesus Christ, acknowledging that like their King, they too will always bear a cross of suffering. The spiritual kingdom also cannot be gathered in one place. Like Christendom, it permeates the world, and continues only until the Last Day. The church, however, is the means by which God operationalizes the Gospel in the world. While the members of the true church are known only to God, He has nonetheless, chosen the church, the bride of Christ to be mother to all true Christians, for it is through the church that God has chosen to continue the priesthood of Christ, a priesthood common to all true Christians, who can preach, baptize, share in the Lord’s Supper, and forgive sins. This spiritual church becomes visible once the gathered community appoints individuals to the offices God has gifted to the church; apostles, preachers, elders, teachers, exhorters, leaders. This temporal church remains imperfect on earth. It will attain perfection only at the Last Days. Nevertheless, where the Word is preached, Baptism performed, the Lord’s Supper administered, the Creed and the Ten Commandments are taught in continuity with the Apostles and the ancient church, the temporal church can nonetheless be identified as it gathers in various locations. Luther would probably have applauded Greengrass’s conclusion that the Reformation destroyed Western Christendom, that is, Christendom as asserted by the Central Middle Ages Papacy (Greengrass: 2014, xxix). For Luther, what was destroyed was not truly Christendom, rather it was a human invention that deluded people and misrepresented God’s Gospel promises. This exploration of Luther’s theology of Christendom lends weight to Wright’s conclusion that those who see in Luther’s teaching of the ‘two kingdoms’ either the basis of social – political theory, or of social – ethical theory, misunderstand and/or knowingly misrepresent Luther (Wright: 2010, 15–16). Where Luther’s theology on Christendom overlaps his teaching on the Kingdom of God, the emphasis is firmly placed on the integration of the physical and the spiritual, not their separation. Similarly, both Christendom rightly understood, and the two kingdoms give priority to the spiritual reality in which true Christians have their essential existence, while at the same time living in a physical realm. Faith accepts what God declares in Christ through the Word, even when reason and experience provide evidence to the contrary. This is the spiritual basis of reality that is foundational for Luther’s worldview.

Christendom as Luther Understood It, and Papacy and Anabaptists Misunderstood It 111

From the above analysis of Luther’s use of Christendom, it is proposed that there is sufficient evidence that Luther did not simply use Christendom interchangeably with church, nor conflate Christendom with the Kingdom of God. While this paper has laid out some of the framework around Luther’s understanding of Christendom, it is hoped that it provides incentive for more extensive investigation of an aspect of Luther’s theology which has not yet been explored.

Bibliography Secondary Literature Bagchi, David (2012), Old Questions, New Answers? Luther and the Problem of Catholicity, Reformation 17, 161–176. Bayer, Oswald (2008), Martin Luther’s Theology. A Contemporary Interpretation, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Braaten, Carl (1998), Mother Church. Ecclesiology and Ecumenism, Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Greengras, Mark (2014), Christendom Destroyed. Europe 1517–1648, The Penguin History of Europe, New York: Penguin Publishing. Lohse, Bernhard (1987), Martin Luther. An Introduction to His Life and Work, Robert C. Schultz (tran.), Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Wright, William J. (2010), Martin Luther’s Understanding of God’s Two Kingdoms. A Response to the Challenge of Skepticism, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.

Jane Schatkin Hettrick

A Lutheran Hymnal of the Enlightenment

On 13 October 1781 Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II (1741–1790) issued a Toleranzedikt (Patent of Tolerance), which granted to Protestants and Greek Orthodox Christians the right to practice their religion privately (das PrivatExercitium auszuüben seyn).1 That is, these groups became legal, though not fully equal to Catholics. Prior to that, Lutherans living under the Austrian monarchy had to stay underground. Without pastors, they had to lead their own worship, smuggling in devotional books and hymnals from outside (cf. Hanisch-Wolfram/ Horn: 2015, 79; also Leeb/Scheutz/Weikl: 2009; Wandruszka: 1967). Sporadic persecution throughout the empire drove many from their homes (cf. Florey: 1981, 101–103). In the capital city of Vienna, some Protestants had been able to attend services in the Danish or Swedish Embassies, but this opportunity was limited (cf. Scheutz: 2009, 220; Evangelisch in Wien: 1982, 16).2 More commonly Lutherans conducted their own Hausandachten (cf. Hanisch-Wolfram: 2015, 68). With their newly gained religious freedom, Lutherans quickly founded a church and raised funds to acquire a building. After considering several options for the location, they decided to purchase (a portion of) the former cloister St Maria, Königin der Engel, one of hundreds of monasteries and cloisters shut down by Emperor Joseph II between 1782 and 1786 (cf. Beales: 2003, 179–228). The building, which was then owned by the city of Vienna was offered at auction, and a decree of the Emperor permitted non-Catholics to participate in the auction. On 13 March 1783 the Lutheran congregation bought “parcel no. 2,” including the church and seven additional rooms; “parcel no. 3” went to the Reformed congregation (cf. 225 Jahre: n.d., 1 p. before center). The current pastor of the Danish Embassy, Johann Georg Fock (1757–1835), was called as the first

1 This document is preserved in the Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv (Karton 33) in Vienna. See also Wolny: 1973. 2 Services were held in the Danish Embassy on Sunday and Wednesday (cf. Uemura: 2011, 90).

114

Jane Schatkin Hettrick

pastor of the new congregation.3 The church was dedicated with a festive service on the first Sunday of Advent, 30 November 1783 (cf. Uemura: 2011, 91).4 One of the leading figures in early Lutheranism in Vienna was Georg Philipp Wucherer (1734–1805). Born in the free imperial city of Reutlingen in southwest Germany, he came from a strong Lutheran background: his father (Johann Jakob) and his elder brother (Gabriel) were Lutheran pastors, and his younger sister (Sophia) was married to one (cf. Uemura: 2011, 86). Georg Philipp, however, was destined by his father for a career in business.5 Indeed, he achieved great success over his lifetime in various commercial undertakings. Active as a book dealer and publisher, he built a flourishing business. In just a few years his printing shop in Vienna published hundreds of writings. Among these were numerous pamphlets, now possible because of another edict from the emperor which allowed (a limited) freedom of the press. Ultimately, by abuse of this freedom, he got into trouble. The details of his problems are described below. The largest single item that came from his press was a Lutheran hymnal, entitled Christliches Gesangbuch zum Gebrauche der Gemeinen der Augsburgischen Confessionsverwandten in den k. k. Erblanden.6 It came out in 1783, in time for use by the newly formed Lutheran congregations throughout the realm. The book contains 916 hymns – a remarkable achievement, given that public Lutheran worship in these areas had barely a two-year history.7 In the preface, the 3 The appointment was confirmed by the government on 19 July 1783; Fock was also named Superintendent of the Church in Nieder- and Inner Österreich, 6 September 1783 (cf. 225 Jahre: n.d., center page). 4 According to the conditions specified in the Toleranzedikt, the building was not to be used in its existing state, but rather it was to be razed and a new building constructed on the site. In this case, however, the emperor required only that the new church not be too large. Moreover, on 29 September 1783 he issued a resolution accepting the request of representatives of the congregation that the two steeples not be torn down (cf. Preidel: 1881, 15–16). 5 Already as a young man he ran a successful enterprise. His connection with Vienna began after he was sent there in 1766 as a representative of the citizens of Reutlingen to work out with the authorities disputes over elections. There he met Emanuel Bozenhardt, owner of a factory in Klosterneuburg, who offered Wucherer a position as director of the factory. Wucherer moved his family to Klosterneuburg in 1768, where he worked for three years until the factory closed. After that he traveled around, eventually finding work as a factory foreman in Graz, and ended up buying the remaining wares when that factory closed. Using these assets he went into partnership with the Vienna businessman Joseph Schwarzleitner, ultimately buying out his share of the business for 36,000 florins. This sum enabled him to achieve Großhandlungsfreiheit (free merchant) status, and he opened a warehouse on Seizerhof (today, Tuchlauben) in the heart of central Vienna (cf. Uemura: 2011, 86–87). 6 This hymnal is preserved in the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, accessible online: http:// data.onb.ac.at/ABO/%2BZ184529805. 7 Large hymnals were not unusual in this period, particularly those associated with Pietism. For example, the Moravian organist and minister Johann Christian Gregor compiled a hymnal that contained 1,750 hymns. Even bigger was the Alt und Neuer Brüder Gesang (1754–1755), a collection that numbered 3,264 hymn texts (cf. Knouse: 2008, 33, 47).

A Lutheran Hymnal of the Enlightenment

115

compiler tells us that he followed a pre-existing model: a hymnal from the north German region Schleswig-Holstein compiled by theologian Johann Andreas Cramer and published in Altona (Hamburg) in 1780.8 The Cramer hymnal, which contains 915 hymns is imbued with the spirit of the Enlightenment. Cramer himself wrote 245 of the hymns, and another sixty came from the pens of Friedrich Gottlieb Klopstock and Christian Fürchtegott Gellert, also expressing the spirit of the time. Furthermore, many older hymns were excluded or rewritten according to the new theology. One addition in the Wucherer collection (not found in the Cramer hymnal) was the Toleranzlied, a paean to the ideal of tolerance by the Swiss poet, writer, and theologian Johann Kaspar Lavater (1741–1801); it was meant to be a lasting tribute to the benefactor of the Lutherans, Emperor Joseph. The heading in the hymnal reads: Toleranzlied, oder zur Beförderung der christlichen Duldung (Song of tolerance, or for the encouragement of Christian patience, no. 494, all 20 stanzas, tune: Wer nur den lieben Gott läßt walten).9 The Wucherer hymnal was used from the beginning by the congregation in Vienna. Accounts in contemporary records of the dedication service on the first Sunday in Advent (30 November 1783, starting at 9 a.m.) consist mostly of the hymns that were sung. After an opening prayer by Pastor Fock, followed the congregational hymn no. 38 from the newly introduced hymnal of G. P. Wucherer: Zeige dich uns ohne hülle (tune: Schmücke dich, o liebe Seele). After the Collect and the Gospel, the cantata was presented, which ended with the first verse of the Toleranzlied of Lavater: O Vater aller geister! ehre Sey dir von deiner kiu[=n]derschaar! (no. 494, tune: Wer nur den lieben Gott läßt walten).10 Then the congregation sang the Hauptlied, no. 630: Laßt uns mit danken treten Vor unsern GOtt (tune: Nun lob mein’ Seel’). After the sermon, the choir with instrumental accompaniment sang Herr GOtt dich loben wir (two versions, nos. 600, 601, tune is text title), while the congregation stood and listened with emotion. The service 8 The title is Allgemeines Gesangbuch auf königlichen allergnädigsten Befehl zum öffentlichen und häuslichen Gebrauch, in den Gemeinden des Herzogthums Schleswig, des Herzogthums Hollstein, der Herrschaft Pinneberg, der Stadt Altona, und der Grafschaft Ranzau gewidmet und mit königlichem allerhöchsten Privilegio herausgegeben. Cramer (1723–1788) was court preacher in Quedlinburg, later Superintendent in Lübeck, and Chancellor of Christian-Albrechts University in Kiel (cf. Hanisch-Wolfram/Horn: 2015, 105). Pastor Fock also stemmed from Schleswig-Holstein (cf. Winter: 1992, 13, n. 67). 9 The complete hymn is reproduced in Preidel: 1881, Appendix III, 103–104. A Toleranzfest was held every year on 13 October or the following Sunday up to 1817 (the 300th anniversary of the Reformation). After that, while not rescinded, it was often transferred to Reformation Day, 31 October. According to Preidel (1881, 27), it continued through 1850. The agenda of Glatz (Glatz hymnal, 1828) still includes prayers for the Toleranzfest (personal communication from Werner Horn). 10 The cantata was: Opfere Gott Dank und bezahle dem Höchsten deine Gelübte by Mattias Stippa (cf. Evangelisch in Wien: 1982, 28); no further information could be found about this cantata.

116

Jane Schatkin Hettrick

ended with hymn no. 626, Dir Vater, Sohn und Geist Sei ehr und preis gegeben (stanza 4 of Nun danket alle Gott) (cf. Preidel: 1881, 17–18). The sections of the hymnal are listed in the table of contents. By comparison to modern hymnals, the list is extraordinarily detailed, with over 175 topics noted. The book is organized in three main sections. Part I is headed Zeitlieder. Under this heading are morning hymns, table songs, evening hymns, Sunday hymns, beginning of the church year, and New Year’s hymns – altogether 75 hymns. In addition, here and also in subsequent sections, a few more numbers from other sections are suggested. Much larger is Part II, entitled Lieder über die Lehren des christlichen Glaubens. This section contains 507 hymns in sixteen sub-divisions, most of which are further sub-divided. The sections are: (1) On the knowledge of God in general, your use [of it], and the means to that end. (2) On God himself and his characteristics. (3) On the Holy Trinity. (4) On the creation. (5) On the providence and reign of Christ. (6) On the innocence of the first men, of their fall and its consequences. (7) On the grace of God toward sinful men and his eternal counsel about their salvation. (8) On the preparations and institutions of God for the salvation of men since the fall, according to the history in the Holy Scriptures. (9) On Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of men, and on his humiliation. (10) On Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of men, and on his elevation. (11) On the Holy Ghost and sanctification. (12) On the means of grace. (13) On confession and faith. (14) On the Christian Church. (15) On the blessings of God, of which true Christians rejoice. (16) On future things. Among the 507 hymns in this section one finds most of the broad subjects of Lutheran hymnody, such as praise, repentance, and God’s grace, although not as discreet topics. The sub-topics branch out into sub-sub-topics, many of these being extremely specific. A case in point is the heading “On God himself and his characteristics”, which covers the following eleven aspects of God: On the one God, the most high spirit; On the eternity and immutability of God; On the omniscience of God; On the wisdom of God; On the omnipotence of God; On the goodness and patience of God; On the holiness of God; On the justice of God; On the truth and faithfulness of God; On the most high blessedness of God; and, On the omnipresence of God.

A Lutheran Hymnal of the Enlightenment

117

The order of the sixteen major headings presents the topics in quasi-historical chronology: from “the knowledge of God” through “creation,” “innocent man in Paradise, the fall”, “Jesus Christ”, and lastly “future things”. Here some sub-sub topics reflect this emphasis on biblical history and become quite specialized. For example, under the heading “On the preparations and arrangements of God since the fall for the salvation of men, according to the history of Holy Scripture” we find: Adam and the promise made to him; Adam’s descendants and the Flood; The increasing idolatry; Abraham; Abraham’s descendants; Israel rescued from Egypt; Israel in the desert; The law on Sinai; Israel in Canaan; David; Israel dispersed after Assyria and Babel; Israel brought back to Canaan; and, The coming of Jesus. All but two of the topics so itemized refer to only a single hymn. Section III adds another 351 hymns to the collection, classed under the heading “Hymns on the Tugendlehre [teaching of virtue, ethics, moral philosophy] of Christianity”. This section contains seven subdivisions. Four of these, comprising about 75 percent of this section, feature the word Pflichten in the title. That is, these texts deal with the obligations of a Christian – to God, to ourselves, to our neighbor, and to society. Again, these lists are quite specific. For example, “Our obligations to our neighbor” has seventeen topics, as follows: love of mankind in general; care for the neighbor’s soul; care for the neighbor’s body, his property, and honor; justice; skill with work; mercy and charity; sincerity, truthfulness, discretion, loyalty; modesty and humility towards others; kindness and friendliness; peacefulness and harmony; gratitude to benefactors; thoughts about Christian friends; love and gentleness towards enemies; intercessions for all men; intercessions for skeptics and unbelievers; thoughts of a Christian on the death of the pious; and, thoughts of a Christian on the death of those who have lived in sin. Like most hymnals from this period, the Christliches Gesangbuch provides text only without music (cf. Blume: 1974, 340). I have not been able to find an accompaniment book with the music for this hymnal, and in general not many such books have survived.11 Given the limited number and great reuse of tunes, it is possible that organists played the hymns from memory. Some wrote out their own accompaniments. Also, not every church, especially in rural areas, possessed an organ, so therefore some congregations probably sang unaccompanied.12 The Christliches Gesangbuch accounts for music, however, in that a tune is assigned 11 One created by Pastor Johann Friedrich Christmann and music director Justin Heinrich Knecht entitled Vollständige Sammlung theils ganz neu componierter, theils verbesserter vierstimmiger Choralmelodien für das wirtembergische Landgesangbuch, was published in 1799. A few others are listed in Leaver/Zager: 2017 and Blume: 1974, 346. 12 As mentioned above, the Lutheran Church in Vienna had an organ from the beginning; the first organist, Franz Lachmund (served 1783–1794) had been organist at the Danish Embassy, and was hired in 1783 from there along with four Kirchendiener by the new congregation (cf. Preidel: 1881, 58; Neuß: 1904, 7).

118

Jane Schatkin Hettrick

for every text, always identified above the first verse of the hymn. The tune may be specified in one of two ways. For certain texts, the tune is indicated by the words In eigner Melodie (in its own tune). Hymns so designated are those long associated with a particular tune that everyone would know. An example is Philipp Nicolai’s text Wie schön leuchtet der morgenstern (no. 664, given as: Wie leuchtet uns der morgenstern). For all other texts, the tune name is noted. Given the large number of texts in this hymnal, it is not unexpected that tunes would occur more than once. Of course, modern hymnals do reuse tunes. In The Lutheran Hymnal (1941, a hymnal of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod) for instance, the tune Erhalt uns, Herr bei deinem Wort (no. 261, Lord, Keep Us Steadfast in Thy Word) serves for four other texts. The difference is that the Wucherer hymnal relies on fewer than 200 tunes for 916 texts, so of necessity there is much more reuse of tunes. What is surprising, though, is which tunes appear most frequently and what texts they are combined with. In some cases, repetition involves tunes that seem uniquely linked to a single text. Here are some numbers: We find the tune Ein’ feste Burg combined with twelve texts; Herzlich lieb hab ich dich with nine; Jesu meine Zuversicht with 24; Nun danket alle Gott with twenty; and O Gott, du frommer Gott with 27, to name a few. Quite striking is the multiple use of a tune like Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, with its distinctive rhythms and turns of melody, here coupled with 23 different texts. Two tunes served for great numbers of texts. Johann Crüger’s Herzliebster Jesu, originally written for the Lenten hymn of the same name was linked with forty texts, and Wer nur den lieben Gott läßt walten was joined with 68 texts.13 The last-named was even chosen for the newly added Toleranzlied, indicating the importance of matching this poem with a familiar tune. The introduction of the Wucherer hymnal did not meet with universal approval, and many problems surfaced. First, although public worship in a church building only became legal for Lutherans under the Habsburg emperor in 1781, Lutheranism was not new in these territories. As mentioned above, for 150 years (ca. 1630–1780), during persecution in Catholic realms, Lutherans had practiced their faith ‘underground’. Largely without pastors, they depended on religious materials (devotional books and hymnals) smuggled in or self-produced. Indeed, hand-written hymn collections were created, testifying to the perseverance of these Lutherans (cf. Hanisch-Wolfram: 2015, 68). Worship was conducted secretly in homes (Hausandachten). With the struggle grew an independent stock of core hymns and long-standing worship practices. Over time, underground Lutheranism absorbed elements of Pietism and remnants of Roman Catholicism (e. g., 13 These two tunes achieved wide popularity. An early nineteenth-century Dresden hymnal also attached Herzliebster Jesu to forty texts, and a Leipzig hymnal from around 1800 used Wer nur den lieben Gott läßt walten for 91 texts (cf. Blume: 1974, 341).

A Lutheran Hymnal of the Enlightenment

119

Marian hymns). The new hymnal apparently disregarded and even clashed with these practices, setting up built-in conflict with deeply-held tradition (cf. Hanisch-Wolfram/Horn: 2015, 105–107). Objections to the new hymnal ranged into many topics and details. People complained that there were too many new hymns and that the old ones were either eliminated or rewritten. As a practical matter, this was a big problem. Many people, especially in rural areas, were illiterate and had little hope of learning new hymns or rewritten versions of the old ones. They sang the old hymns by heart. As is evident, instead of order by the liturgical year, the new book was organized largely by points of history and rationalism. Frequently the hymns in these categories delivered a moralizing message or practical advice rather than the forgiveness of sin and the comfort of the Gospel. And, as suggested previously, the topics become almost minute. For example under “Obligations to Society” we find “On the responsibilities of the high authorities” (no. 819, fourteen verses sung to Vom Himmel hoch), and “On the responsibilities of the subject” (no. 820, twelve verses sung to Nun komm der Heiden Heiland). There are also hymns for numerous professions: scholars, cloth manufacturers and dealers, artists, workers, soldiers, and sailors, among others. One of the numerous hymns of C.F. Gellert that appear in the hymnal serves to illustrate how the content and tone of many hymns, especially those in the Tugendlehre section, tend to be didactic rather than Gospel-oriented. Der wolllust reiz zu widerstreben (no. 741, incorrectly listed in the index as 747) consists of sixteen stanzas, sung In eigner Melodie. The first stanza, given here, is illustrative: Der wollust reiz zu widerstreben, Dieß, jugend, (liebst du glück und leben,) Laß täglich deine weisheit seyn. Entflieh der schmeichelnden begierde, Stets sey die keuschheit deine zierde, Der wollust freuden werden pein.

To resist the allure of lust Young man (if you love happiness and life) Let this be your wisdom every day, Flee from carnal pleasures Always let chastity be your adornment The delights of desire [soon] turn to pain.

The remaining fifteen stanzas continue in this advisory vein. The word wollust returns seven more times; God is mentioned in five later stanzas (4, 11, 12, 15, 16); Christ, not at all. The strife over the Wucherer hymnal and other new hymnals reached deep and long, causing ongoing tension in the church for many decades. Ultimately it was not completely resolved until into the twentieth century (Hanisch-Wolfram/ Horn: 2015, 127). As a result, historians have designated this episode in Austrian Lutheran hymnody with the word Gesangbuchstreit (hymnal conflict).14 Archival 14 See Hofhansl: 1978. Further episodes of Gesangbuchstreit have been noted, e. g. in Vahldorf and Berlin (cf. Pfeiffer/Lübeck/Dietze: 2009; Spankeren: 2011).

120

Jane Schatkin Hettrick

accounts indicate that in rural areas, especially in Kärnten and Oberösterreich, people put up massive resistance to the new hymnal. Moreover, records of the ongoing struggles suggest that both sides were intractable. Reports by senior church officials and pastors recount some of the reasons parishioners gave for rejecting the new hymnal. As already mentioned, unfamiliar tunes and wordings were at the top of the list. Old hymns were taken away, and people were forced to learn new ones. The hymnal lacked specific hymns for the Gospel and Sundays of the liturgical year. Moreover, people resented criticism of the old books, which had sustained them through the hard times. They were angry that Catholics were still allowed to use the old devotional books. At the same time, they denounced the book for including Catholic and even heathen hymns (cf. Hanisch-Wolfram/ Horn: 2015, 106). Complaints also extended to the style of language and imagery. It was produced by a businessman rather than an educated churchman and it contained numerous misprints. Finally, the book was too large, too expensive, and contained too many hymns. For their part, the church authorities in their zeal to promote the new book with its theology of tolerance, reacted largely with intolerance. Their goal was to modernize worship and create unity among parishes, whatever the cost.15 They derided the old books for hymns that slandered and defamed the Catholic Church, the Pope, the Turk, and also the emperor. The most famous example is Luther’s hymn Erhalt uns, Herr, bei deinem Wort, in which the second line names two of these: Und steur des Papsts und Türken Mord (cf. Dollinger: 1960). Records reveal that they mocked uncooperative church members as “backward,” and characterized their objections as partially “laughable” (cf. Hanisch-Wolfram/ Horn: 2015, 123). Supervisors threatened to remove pastors and close churches that resisted. In one case, a pastor ended up exiled.16 Conflicts escalated, and many acts of resistance are recorded. For example, some parishioners refused to sing even one hymn from the new book – when a new hymn was introduced, they just sat there in silence. Others never brought the book to church, so they couldn’t sing anything. Some were so angry that they stayed away from services. In the parish of Arriach, members returned the hymnals to the pastor, slammed them on the desk, and demanded their money back. The uproar in another congregation culminated when fisticuffs threatened to break out in the church office (cf. Hanisch-Wolfram/Horn: 2015, 119, 122– 123). 15 At this time about fifty different hymnals were in use in Austrian areas (cf. Hanisch-Wolfram/ Horn: 2015, 104). 16 Eferdinger Pastor Eisenbach attempted to compile an independent hymnal, which the consistory rejected. When he persisted, he was removed from office. Nevertheless, Eisenbach had acquired a considerable following in several parishes, which led to his being exiled in 1788 (cf. Hanisch-Wolfram/Horn: 2015, 117).

A Lutheran Hymnal of the Enlightenment

121

Interestingly, similar problems developed in the Catholic Church when the authorities attempted to introduce congregational singing in the vernacular. As early as 1774, Empress Maria Theresia had sponsored the publication of a hymnal: Katholisches Gesangbuch auf allerhöchsten Befehl Ihrer k. k. apost. Majestät Marien Theresiens zum Druck befördert.17 In 1783, Emperor Joseph II issued a new Gottesdienstordnung, which altered the liturgy and greatly curtailed the practice of church music in Vienna. Although vigorously contested by churchmen, this reform did succeed in promoting the use of some vernacular hymns in the mass. Little known is that one of his goals – which remained unrealized – was to substitute German for Latin in the Mass. Archbishop Hieronymus Colloredo of Salzburg championed the reforms of Joseph II and introduced them in the regions under his control. In his Hirtenbrief auf die am 1ten Herbstm. dieses 1782ten Jahrs, nach zurückgelegten zwölften Jahrhundert, eintretende Jubelfeyer Salzburgs (29 June 1782), he sharply criticized the current state of church music, repeatedly citing “abuses,” and as a remedy, he prescribes congregational hymns in German (cf. Hersche: 1976 for full text). Evidence shows, however, that Colloredo’s efforts to have worshippers sing vernacular hymns did not succeed. Like the Lutherans who rejected the Wucherer hymnal, Catholic parishioners resisted the introduction of German hymns by not singing them, and worshippers in parishes near the border attended services in Bavarian churches. One of the charges brought against the Wucherer hymnal is that it contained nothing but “fabricated” hymns. The German word here (erdichtet) means “dreamed up” or “fantasy”. As an accusation, it conveys that people rightly or wrongly viewed some of the hymns, if not the entire collection, with suspicion. It may just reflect the sheer amount of unfamiliar material – both new hymns and rewritten old ones. In certain cases, as a compromise, two versions of a hymn were included, usually one directly after the other: first the original, old text and then the new “enlightened” wording. An example of this arrangement are the two forms of Luther’s great missionary hymn Es woll’ uns Gott gnädig sein (no. 479 and 480). The new version seems to aim at making the text less “offensive” or, perhaps, more tolerant of what today might be called “other”. In place of Luther’s precise word heiden18 we find the general terms allen (verse 1, line 8) and nationen (verse 2, line 2). According to Luther, it is the heathen who must “turn to God” (zu Gott bekehren); the new phrase replaces “heathen” with “all” and “all nations”. Along 17 A copy is preserved in the special collections division of the library of Wellesley College, Wellesley, Massachusetts. I am grateful to Marianna S. Oller (Associate Curator) for making it available to me. 18 Citations of words in the Wucherer hymnal retain the spelling and capitalization found in that hymnal. General references use modern versions.

122

Jane Schatkin Hettrick

the same line is the replacement of his inclusive alles volk to the limited wir (verse 2, line 8) that needs to stay on the rechter bahn (verse 2, last line). Clearly, these changes detract from or even conceal the mission purpose of the hymn. We could also ask what was wrong with the word antlitz, which becomes angesicht (verse 1, line 3) in the new version. Perhaps this is an early example of “dumbing down” of too elevated language. In English the difference is between the complex and elegant word “countenance,” meaning “expression on the face” and the plainer term “face,” referring more to the physical entity. Es woll’ uns Gott in Wucherer, Christliches Gesangbuch (Vienna, 1783) 479 [Luther] 1. Es woll’ uns Gott gnädig seyn May God grant to us his grace Und seinen seegen geben; And give us his blessing; Sein antlitz uns mit hellem schein His countenance on us with clear radiance Erleucht zum ewgen leben; Lights the way to eternal life; Daß wir erkennen seine werk’, That we may know his works, Und was ihn liebt auf erden, And what pleases him on earth, Und JEsus Christus heil und stärk And the redemption and strength of Jesus Christ Bekannt den heiden werden, May be known to the heathen, Und sie zu Gott bekehren! And they be converted to God!

480 [1783] 1. Es wolle GOtt uns gnädig seyn, = Und seinen seegen geben; = Mit seines angesichtes schein With the radiance of his face Erleucht er uns zum leben! He lights the way to life! Laß uns erkennen, unser GOtt, May we know, our God, Dein grosses werk auf erden; Thy great work on earth; Laß JEsu Christi mittlertod May the expiatory death of Jesus Christ Erkannt von allen werden, Be known to all, Und alle dir bekehren! And all be converted to thee!

2. So danken, GOtt, und loben dich Thus thank thee God, and praise thee, Die heiden über alle; The heathen everywhere; Und alle welt die freue sich And may all the world rejoice Und sing’ mit grossem schalle, And sing with great resounding, Daß du auf erden richter bist, That thou art the judge on earth, Und läßt die sünd’ nicht walten; And dost not allow sin to rule; Dein wort die hut und weide ist, Thy word is shelter and pasture, Die alles volk erhalten, That all people receive, In rechter bahn zu wallen! To journey on the right path!

2. So danken dir, und loben dich Thus thank thee and praise thee Die nationen alle; All the nations; So freut der ganze weltkreis sich, So the whole earth rejoices, Und singt mit grossem schalle, And sings with great resounding, Daß du sein Gott und richter bist, That thou art its God and judge, Nicht läßt die sünde walten; = Daß noch dein wort dein seegen ist, That thy word is still thy blessing, Den wir von dir erhalten, That we receive from thee, Auf rechter bahn zu wallen! =

A Lutheran Hymnal of the Enlightenment

123

Two versions of Luther’s Creed hymn, Wir glauben all’ an einen Gott were included: Luther’s original (no. 111) and the modernized version (no. 112). In this case, by a very small change, the reviser may have crossed a line in doctrine. Luther’s text speaks of “the Virgin Mary” (von Maria, der jungfrauen, verse 2, line 5), as in the Nicene Creed. The new version quietly omits the word Jungfrau. Such an omission suggests an attempt to sow doubt on a tenet that may have been questioned by some theologians of the time, although Luther himself accepted this ancient doctrine of the Church. A modernized hymn-version that must have raised hackles is the revision of Luther’s Ein’ feste burg (no. 487). It appears directly following the original version (no. 486), which was also included. As with other rewritten hymns, the new text did not introduce heresy or outright false doctrine. It did, however, change many of the wordings. This raises questions: What did the authors intend to achieve? Does the new version improve the poetry of the original? Does it subtly alter the content of the original? Long before 1783, Ein’ feste Burg had become more than just another church hymn. Rather, for many it had come to represent Lutheran identity and to hold theological authority. For this reason alone, it should have been untouchable. In the Enlightenment period, however, numerous theologians and poets tampered with Luther’s text. It is instructive to look at a couple of phrases. Many of the revised versions rejected the opening three words, Ein’ feste burg. Why? It appears that the “age of tolerance” was loathe to speak of a “fortress.”19 Such a structure perhaps spoke the language of battle – even spiritual battle was apparently an unpopular concept with “enlightened” thinkers. Likewise, the war-like imagery in the next line, Ein gute wehr und waffen, had to go, replaced here with the mild assertion Auf den wir uns verlassen. Rejected also was the word Zebaoth (verse 2, line 7). Is it possible that this biblical and also liturgical (Sanctus, Te Deum) word for the “army” of God was too militaristic? The final line, Das Reich Gott’s muß uns bleiben (verse 4) also suffered many variants, possibly because in the Zeitgeist, it seemed to express an undesirable exclusivity. One solution to the problem of Ein’ feste burg was to omit Luther’s hymn entirely. In 1788 the consistory reluctantly approved the publication of a locally-produced hymnal. To indulge people’s weakness, this book was allowed to retain “much old rubbish” (manchen alten Wust), provided that it would be replaced after one generation. Even with this compromise, however, the consistory would not agree unless Ein’ feste burg be stricken from the list (Hanisch-Wolfram/Horn: 2015, 117). 19 I am using one of the standard English translations of the words feste and Burg. Other possible renderings of feste include strong, immoveable, or permanent; of Burg: castle, citadel, or stronghold. A good singing English translation requires a two-syllable word for the German feste.

124

Jane Schatkin Hettrick

486 [Luther] 1. Ein’ feste burg ist unser GOtt A mighty fortress is our God Ein gute wehr und waffen. A good shield and weapon. Er hilft uns frey aus aller noth, He helps us free from every need Die uns jezt hat betroffen. That has us now affected. Der alt’ böse feind The old evil foe Mit ernst ers jetzt meyu[=n]t; Now means it in earnest; Groß macht und viel list Great might and much guile Sein grausam’ rüstung ist; Is his fierce armour; Auf erd’n ist nicht sein’s gleichen. On earth is not his equal.

487 [1783] 1. Ein starker schutz ist unser GOtt, A strong protection is our God, Auf den wir uns verlassen. On whom we can rely. Er hilft uns treu aus aller noth; He helps us faithfully in every need, Mag doch die welt uns hassen! Though the world may hate us! Satan, unser feind, Satan, our foe, Der mit ernst es meynt, Who means it in earnest, Rüstet sich mit list, Arms himself with guile; Trotzt, daß er mächtig ist; Though he is mighty Ihm gleicht kein feind auf erden. No enemy on earth is his equal.

2. Mit unsrer macht ist nichts gethan; With our own power, nothing can be done; Wir sind gar bald verlohren. We would soon be lost. Es streit’t für uns der rechte mann, For us the right man fights Den GOtt seld[=b]st hat erkohren. Whom God himself has chosen. Fragst du, wer er ist? Do you ask, who it is? Er heißt Jesus Christ, His name is Jesus Christ, Der Herr Zebaoth, The Lord of Sabaoth, Und ist kein ander GOtt; There is none other God; Das feld muß er behalten. He must hold the field.

Nicht unsre macht ists, die ihn fällt; It is not our power that fells him; Wir wären bald verlohren. = Es kämpft für uns der rechte held, For us the right hero fights, Von GOtt für uns erkohren. Chosen for us by God. Fragst du, wer er ist? = Er heißt Jesus Christ, = Unser HErr und GOtt; Our Lord and God. Er straft gewalt und spott; He punishes power and scorn; Er muß den sieg behalten! He must hold the victory!

Let us now return to the publisher of this much-contested hymnal, Georg Philipp Wucherer. As already noted, he built a very successful printing business and was a founding member of the Lutheran congregation in Vienna. But he made mistakes, or worse.20 For example, he disregarded the regulations of censorship by publishing or importing unapproved books. He also published pamphlets deemed to be subversive to the government. Over a period of years he battled with the authorities, making several appeals to the emperor, about numerous charges 20 By coincidence,“Wucherer” is a term meaning a usurer or profiteer. Thus G.P. Wucherer, while he did not engage in money-lending, did live up in the broader sense of unethical conduct to the meaning suggested by his name.

A Lutheran Hymnal of the Enlightenment

125

brought against him. His defiance seemingly knew no bounds. For example, he published in 1787 a pamphlet entitled Warum wird Kaiser Joseph von seinem Volke nicht geliebt?21 which was at the least, insulting to the emperor – the very ruler who had granted some press freedom and thus enabled Wucherer to profit from his business. Even before that, the whole affair boiled over in 1786 when an anonymous writer published a pamphlet entitled Wie lange noch? Eine Patriotenfrage an die Behörde über Wucherers Skarteken Großhandel. (How much longer? A patriotic question to the authorities about Wucherer’s skarteken big business).22 The word “skarteke,” now archaic, means “useless book” or “unworthy scrap of paper” – in a word: trash. In 55 pages the author delivers a long rant on Wucherer’s offenses and crimes. He begins: A foreigner has slithered in among the residents of Vienna, an off-scouring [of humanity], […] who settled in Vienna with the shameful intent of robbing his fellow men […] by thievish reprinting, by publication of unbridled slanderous writing to destroy for the monarch the love of his good subjects; and by frequent paragraphs of infamous skarteken to fatten and enrich himself” (p. 3–4).

It goes downhill from there, calling Wucherer every name in the book and then some. Here are some epithets used: rogue (p. 18), criminal, scoundrel (p. 23), hypocrite (p. 24, 26), liar, charlatan (p. 27), swindler (p. 43), slanderer (p. 45), libeler (p. 45), smuggler, villain (p. 48), scum (p. 52), rattlesnake (p. 53), perjurer (p. 54), and, early on, “hyena in sheepskin” (p. 5). Of course, everything he produced was “rubbish” (Verlagswust, p. 51). Inevitably, by enumerating his many sins, this pamphlet called into question Wucherer’s position as a Vorsteher (elder) of the Lutheran Church in Vienna. Indeed, the writer brings up the subject of Wucherer’s standing in the Church, claiming: “He creates a bad impression of the Protestants, of which he is a member, who up to now, are known for their integrity; he is an unworthy member of the congregation in Vienna, and even became a Kirchenvater, God knows how” (p. 52). With the growing public scandal, Wucherer became a liability, and the church officials could no longer ignore the situation. Thus in 1786 the church board asked Wucherer to resign from his office as a Vorsteher. Wucherer had no 21 This pamphlet is attributed to Joseph Richter (1749–1813), a journalist and author of numerous satirical writings. A copy is preserved in the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, and is available online: http://data.onb.ac.at/ABO_%2BZ157292609. In the same year (1787) an anonymous pamphlet responding to Richter’s writing was published in Vienna: Kaiser Joseph wird doch geliebt/ Eine kleine Antwort auf die kürzlich erschienene Schrift:/Warum wird Kaiser Joseph von seinem Volke nicht geliebt? ([ZITIERLINK:] http://data.onb.ac.at/ABO/% 2BZ1572609). 22 This pamphlet is attributed to Johann Rautenstrauch (1746–1801); a copy is preserved in the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, and is available online: http://data.onb.ac.at/ABO/%2BZ15802300X.

126

Jane Schatkin Hettrick

choice but to agree. A translation of the letter acknowledging his resignation is given below. Clearly his colleagues in the congregation were sorry to lose him. He also had to give up his membership in the congregation. With regret we learn from your note of the 25th of this [month], that propriety has caused you to resign from your position of church Vorsteher, held until now. We would have preferred if you could have undertaken to continue with our common business, but since everyone has free will, and when it pleases him, allowed by free will, he can free himself [from a position], we consider ourselves obligated to accept your resignation. It is, however, also our duty in the name of the congregation, to render to you the kindest thanks for your tireless diligence, for your dedication, and your dutiful work in our church affairs. On the other hand, we ourselves recognize with grateful hearts your demonstrated collegial friendship and your help, and we live in the hope that even apart from the connection hitherto, you will remain a friend of ours and our entire congregation, which we etc. [signed] von Wielandtmp [manu propria], Thomann, Graeffer.23

Ultimately, after many years of wrangling with the civil authorities, Wucherer was forced to leave Vienna. In the end he had to close his business and auction off the inventory. Among the 256 items offered in the sale, his Christliches Gesangbuch (in various formats, e. g., unbound copies) proved to draw the biggest price. The starting figure was set at 309 florins, 42 kreuzer, but it sold at 550 florins (cf. Uemura: 2011, 228). Perhaps the church leaders in Vienna wanted to buy up the remaining stock of Wucherer’s hymnal.

Conclusion In conclusion, hymnals produced in the Enlightenment period saw many changes in hymnody. Such changes reflect new developments in theology as well as the effort to modernize language. The introduction of the first official Lutheran hymnal in Austrian lands (Christliches Gesangbuch, published in 1783 by G.P. Wucherer) illustrates the difficulty of imposing a new hymnal which was dramatically different to congregations accustomed to earlier worship materials. Incidentally, for church authorities today, the experience with the Wucherer 23 This document is preserved in the archive of the Evangelische Kirche in Vienna: 86 Fasculus IV der zur Gemeine Augsb. Conf. in Wien gehörigen Kirchen Acten vom Jahr 1784/Gd. I/I Bd. II (1784–1864) N 861. The three men who signed this letter were Vorsteher of the congregation. Johann Andreas von Wielandt (1737–1801) was the author of a small book entitled Der dankbare Protestant gegen seinen duldenen Kaiser, published in 1782. Johann Michael Edler von Thomann (1754–1820) was a Großhändler. Rudolf Graeffer (1734–1817) was a Buchhändler. I want to thank Dr. Hannelore Köhler for graciously making this archive available to me and allowing me to search freely and make photographic copies of documents.

A Lutheran Hymnal of the Enlightenment

127

hymnal stands as a lesson in pastoral practice in the compilation and introduction of new hymnals.

Bibliography Primary Sources Manuscript Source No. 851 / An H[errn] Ge.[org] Phil.[ipp] Wucherer / d[en] 29 Aug. 1786. Archive of the Evangelische Kirche in Vienna: 86 Fasculus IV der zur Gemeine Augsb. Conf. in Wien gehörigen Kirche. Acten vom Jahr 1784/Gd. I/I Bd. II (1784–1864) N 861.

Printed Sources Allgemeines Gesangbuch (1780), Allgemeines Gesangbuch auf königlichen allergnädigsten Befehl zum öffentlichen und häuslichen Gebrauch, in den Gemeinden des Herzogthums Schleswig, des Herzogthums Hollstein, der Herrschaft Pinneberg, der Stadt Altona, und der Grafschaft Ranzau gewidmet und mit königlichem allerhöchsten Privilegio herausgegeben. Comp. Johann Cramer, Altona (Hamburg). Christliches Gesangbuch (1783), Christlichen Gesangbuch zum Gebrauche der Gemeinen der Augsburgischen Confessionsverwandten in den k. k. Erblanden. Mit Allerhöchster k.k. Erlaubniß zum Druck befördert durch Georg Philipp Wucherer, k. k. priv. Großhändler. Wien, mit von Schönfeldischen Schriften. Colloredo, Hieronymus (1782), Hirtenbrief auf die am 1sten Herbstm. dieses 1782ten ssJahrs, nach zurückgelegten zwölften Jahrhundert, eintretende Jubelfeyer Salzburgs (29 June 1782), in: Peter Hersche (ed.) (1976), Der aufgeklärte Reformkatholizismus in Österreich, Bern/Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Herbert Lang. Katholisches Gesangbuch (1774?), Katholisches Gesangbuch auf allerhöchsten Befehl Ihrer k. k. apost. Majestät Marien Theresiens zum Druck befördert. Wien: im Verlag der katechetischen Bibliothek. Rautenstrauch, Johann (1786), Wie lange noch? Eine Patriotenfrage an die Behörde über Wucherers Skarteken Großhandel, Wien. Richter, Joseph (1787), Warum wird Kaiser Joseph nicht von seinem Volke geliebt? Wien: Georg Philipp Wucherer.

Secondary Literature Beales, Derek (2003), Prosperity and Plunder, European Catholic Monasteries in the Age of Revolution, 1650–1815, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Blume, Friedrich (1974), Protestant Church Music, New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

128

Jane Schatkin Hettrick

Dollinger, Robert (1960), Erhalt uns Herr, bei deinem Wort!, in: ZBKG 29, 33–42. Evangelisch in Wien (1982), Evangelisch in Wien: 200 Jahre Evangelische Gemeinden, Vienna: Historisches Museum der Stadt Wien, Karlsplatz. Florey, Gerhard (1981), Die große Emigration, in: Reformation Emigration, Protestanten in Salzburg, Ausstellung 21. Mai–26. Oktober 1981, Schloß Goldegg-Pongau, Land Salzburg, 101–108. Hanisch-Wolfram, Alexander (2015), StimmKraft: Kirchenlieder Schreiben Geschichte, Katalog zur Sonderausstellung im Evangelischen Kulturzentrum Fresach, 26. April bis 31. Oktober 2015, Klagenfurt: Verlag Johannes Heyn. Hanisch-Wolfram, Alexander/Horn, Werner (ed.), (2015), StimmKraft: Kirchenlieder Schreiben Geschichte, Beiträge zu Vergangenheit, Gegenwart und Zukunft Evangelischen Singens, Klagenfurt: Verlag des Kärntner Landesarchivs. Hersche, Peter (1976), Der aufgeklärte Reformkatholizismus in Österreich, Bern/ Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Herbert Lang. Hofhansl, Ernst (1978), Nachlese zum oberösterreichischen Gesangbuchstreit, Ein Beitrag zur österreichischen Frömmigkeitsgeschichte, in: JGPrÖ 94, 96–106. Kleindel, Walter (1978), Österreich, Daten zur Geschichte und Kultur, Vienna: Im Auftrag hergestellte Sonderausgabe. Knouse, Nola Reed (ed.) (2008), The Music of the Moravian Church in America, Rochester, New York: University of Rochester Press. Leaver, Robin A./Zager, Daniel (ed.) (2017), Organ Accompaniment of Congregational Song: Historical Documents and Settings, vol. 2: Eighteenth-Century Germany, Colfax, North Carolina: Wayne Leupold Editions. Neusz, C. (1904), Chronik Wiener evangelischen Gemeinde Augsburger Bekenntnisses vom Zeitpunkte ihrer Entstehung bis auf die Gegenwart. Nach Archivquellen bearbeitet vom Jahre 1781–1863. Fortgesetzt vom Jahre 1864–1903 von Dr. Johann Kaiser, Wien: Theodor Daberkow’s Verlag. Pauly, Reinhard (1957), The Reforms of Church Music under Joseph II, in: Musical Quarterly 43, 372–382. Pfeiffer, Rudiger/Lübeck, Wilfried/Dietze, Erco von (2009), Der Vahldorfer Gesangbuchstreit, Beiträge zur Mitteldeutschen Kulturgeschichte 3, Vienna: Peter Lang. Preidel, Friedrich (1881), Die Evangelische Kirchengemeinde A. C. zu Wien in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung von 1781–1881, Vienna: In Commission der Sallmayer’schen Buchhandlung (Julius Schellbach). Scheutz, Martin (2009), Legalität und unterdrückte Religionsausübung- Niederleger, Reichshofräte, Gesandte und Legationsprediger, Protestantisches Leben in der Hauptund Residenzstadt Wien im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert, in: Rudolf Leeb/Martin Scheutz/ Dietmar Weikl (ed.), Geheimprotestantismus und evangelische Kirchen in der Habsburgermonarchie und im Erzstift Salzburg (17./18. Jahrhundert), Vienna: Böhlau Verlag, 209–236. Spankeren, Malte van (2011), Johann Joachim Spalding und der Berliner Gesangbuchstreit (1781), in: ZNThG 18, 191–211. The Lutheran Hymnal (1941), St. Louis, Missouri: Concordia Publishing House. Uemura, Toshiro (2011), Die Öffentlichkeit anhand der Wiener Broschüren zur Zeit Josephs II. Die Informationsverbreitung unter dem aufgeklärten Absolutismus, Ph.D. diss., Universität Wien.

A Lutheran Hymnal of the Enlightenment

129

Wandruszka, Adam (1967), Geheimprotestantismus, Josephinismus und Volksliturgie, in: ZKG 78, 94–101. Winter, Michael (1992), Georg Philipp Wucherer (1734–1805), Großhändler und Verleger, Sonderdruck aus dem Archiv für Geschichte des Buchwesens, vol. 37, Frankfurt am Main: Büchhändler Vereinigung. Wolny, Reinhold (1973), Die josephinische Toleranz: unter besonderer Berücksichtigung ihres geistlichen Wegbereiters Johann Leopold Hay, Munich: Lerche. 225 Jahre (2009), 225 Jahre lutherische Stadtkirche, 1783–2008, Hannelore Köhler (ed.), Vienna: Evangelische Pfarrgemeinde A.B.

Marta Quatrale

Nikolaus von Amsdorf ’s Reply to Johannes Pfeffinger. Some Remarks on Luther’s Harvest in the So-Called Adiaphoristischer Streit

Following the guideline represented by the question concerning what came out of Luther within his movement, or rather how did Luther’s fellows manage Luther’s legacy, as a peculiar declination of the topic ‘speaking in plural’ about the Reformation in the sixteenth century, my aim is to sketch some very side notes concerning Luther’s legacy in the so-called Adiaphoristischer Streit, focussing on an exemplar case concerning the Magdeburger’s reaction to Johannes Pfeffinger in the autumn of 1550. In the attempt to put some order in the relevant sources mentioned, I am presenting them as appendix to this introductive paper. The process of accentuation of Luther’s ipsissima verba, codified in the literary genre of the Lutherflorilegium, became particularly evident after his death. Already in the context of the Smalcald War, the print of some crucial works under Melanchthon’s leadership represented a weapon for the evangelical party to stimulate an Imperial action against the “Roman Antichrist”. In the controversies arising from the Augsburger Interim, the pattern of Luther’s theological-political argumentations represented a medium within the evangelical party itself to legitimate its own position, constructing different declinations of a Lutherbild in this respect, in the controversies of the so-called Magdeburger against the Albertinian theologians, and later in the ones engaging the theologians in Jena against the Wittenberger. In this context, is the process of canonisation of Luther as the reformer and the main charachter in this “Antichristical struggle” only an effect of a certain reception of his own production, a petitio principii individuating in the authoritative sources historical patterns to be confirmed through the events, and mutually adapting the interpretation of the sources to let them match with the events? More radically: does his heroisation let Luther’s words become themselves an authoritative source, which might be interpreted – and even falsified –, but not explicitly contradicted? Yes, in this particularly troubled period at least. The polemical production of the period presents itself as an objective report of the events, or rather a proof that the own position in this events does match with Luther’s purposes.

132

Marta Quatrale

The So-Called Adiaphoristischer Streit and Flacius’ Edition of Luther’s Coburgbriefe Beside three former editions of Luther’s letters – the one edited by Vinzenz Obsopoeus in 1525, the one by Caspar Cruciger in 1545 and the one Johann Aurifabers by 1547 – in the spring of the year 1549 a Latin and a German edition of the Coburgbriefe1 of the reformer saw the light of the day. From the beginning of the Reformation onwards, the topic of the adiaphora was always controversial. The question concerned the criterion to establish what exceeds the essential point of the doctrine, and to identify the point in which the 1 In the Postface of the Latin Edition Flacius writes: “Ex his R. P. D. Martini Lutheri piae memoriae Epistolis facile potes intelligere, pie lector, quae fuerit eius sentencia de istis Christi cum Belial conciliationibus, ut execreris et ipsas conciliationes et earum authores” (fol. C 2v) – thesis stated in the Postface (Zum Leser) of the German Edition too: “Auss diesen brieffen des Ehrwirdigen Doct. Mart. Luthers seliger gedechtnis kanstu, lieber leser, leichtlich vernemen, was Er gehalten hab von den jtzigen vereinungen Christi vnnd Belials, Das du auch wol verfluchen möchtest die vereinigung vnd jhre Stiffter zugleich” (fol. F 4v). For the topic of the opposition Christus-Belial, cf. WA Br 5, 458,7; 470,3f; 576,16, and the investigation in NKZ 28, 151ff and AELKZ 50, coll. 437–439. For a contextualisation, cf. Förstermann: 1835; Scheible: 1997; Rückert: 1972, 108–136. The German Edition of the Coburgbriefe has been republished – unlike Flacius’ other polemical writing – in 1558 in the Gnesiolutheran Jena, slightly edited by Georg Rörer (cf. NKZ 28, 179) as a part of the Jenaer Gesamtausgabe der Werke Luthers. After Aurifaber’s Edition of Luther’s letters until 1528 (1565), a complete Latin edition took place in Johann Franz Buddeus’s Supplementum Epistolarum Martini Lutheri (1702), in which Flacius’ work has been completely reprinted as source. Within the context of the debates concerning the Adiaphora, in 1549 the Hamburger Joachim Westphal published through the printhouse of Michael Lotter in Magdeburg SENTEN-||TIA REVERENDI VI-||ri D. M. Luth. Sanctae memoriae|| de Adiaphoris ex scriptis illi-||us collecta per M. Ioachi-||mum VVestpha-||lum, Pasto-||rem in Ecclesia Hambur.|| …. || 1549, cf. GBSLM 17, 211f, Nr. 355 (= Bibliographiae reconditae, vol. 1, 667f, Nr. 355); NKZ 28, 183. Similarly to what stated by Flacius in his Preface to Eine schrifft der Theologen …, Westphal states in his text: “Matthiae Flacii Jllyrici vnd aller fromen Christen beger an die Adiaphoristen”. In consists in some excerpts of Flacius’ Latin edition, regarding Luther’s letters to Melanchthon and Jonas (1530) and a text of the Wittenberger theologians adressed to the Nürnberger ministers, already used by Flacius in his Latin edition (Ex Epistola Theologorum Vuittenbergensium ad concionatores Nurenbergenses Anno 40. Scripta, 1540), completed with some up to that moment unknown and unpublished sources, namely some letters written by Luther to Melanchthon in 1540 (WA Br 9, 272, 16–40, Ex Epistola Martini Lutheri ad Phili. Melan., cum esset in conuentu Vuormaciensi scripta. anno 1540 and 278, 2–17, republished in Schütze: 1781, vol. 3, 148ff, following the Gothaer Handschrift B 185, fol. 497b and 497a, and then in Strobel/Ranner: 1814, 22ff, following Westphal’s edition). As for Flacius, for Westphal too a German translation of the (almost unrevised) work has occurred (Des Ehrwirdigen|| vnd tewren Mans Doct. Marti.|| Luthers seliger gedechtnis meinung,|| von den Mitteldingen, durch M.|| Joachimu¯ Westphalum Pfar-||hern zu Hamburgk zusa-||men gelesen.|| ….|| Anno 1550. 34, Magdeburg, Michael Lotter. cf. GBSLM 17, 226, Nr. 384 (= Bibliographiae reconditae, vol. 1, 682, Nr. 384); NKZ 28, 183), and due to the precedent of Flacius’ work, Westphal’s text required as a matter of fact just some minor revisions. Cf. WA Br 2, 431, 12–23; 27–31; 433, 104–107, 121–125 and WA Br 9, 55, 169–56, 20.

Nikolaus von Amsdorf’s Reply to Johannes Pfeffinger

133

central position of the Gospel are endangered within the religious praxis in the Church. In respect to this topic, the letters sent by Luther from the Veste Coburg to the evangelical theologians gathered together at the Diet of Augsburg (1530), particularly to Melanchthon, Brenz, Jonas, and Spalatin, show some fluctuations in his theological standpoint2 in the attempt to find a viable path between tolerance and readiness to compromise and own doctrinal identity and consistency. The concept of adiaphora – hardly present in Luther’s own production – is usually reduced to a series of ceremonies and secular elements, whose relativisation is assumed by Luther as precondition among the evangelical theologians, being the justifying grace the only element to make them effective, sola gratia.3 Setting aside his – even weak – willingness to compromise,4 the late Luther paved the way to the Magdeburger theologian’s radical opposition right after his death.5 2 In April 1530, in his Vermanung die gantze geistiickeit zu Augsburg versamlet auff den Reichstag, Luther conceded, “das unter obgezelten stuecken etliche sind, die nicht zu verwerffen sind, Und der selbigen etliche sind gefallen, die ich nicht wolt, das sie gefallen weren” (WA 30 II, 352, 21–23). Some depictions of popular piety are to be derived from a certain pedagogical use, but “das wir alte narren jnn Bisschoffs hueten und geistlichem geprenge daher gehen und machen ernst draus, Ja nicht allein ernst, sondern artikel des glaubens, das es suende mus sein, und die gewissen martern, wer solch kinderspiel nicht anbetet, das ist der teuffei selbst, Daraus folget denn, das alle obgenannte stuecke, wie kindisch und lecherlich sie sind, dennoch mit ernst den Christlichen glauben und die rechten noetigen stueck, so ob angezeigt, stuermen und verderbe” (WA 30 II, 353, 20–26). The same position is stated in a letter written to Melanchthon on the 26 August: “Me urit non parum ista sacrilega vox ‘indifferens’; scilicet hac eadem voce fecerim facile omnes Dei leges et ordinationes indifferentes. Uno enim admisso indifferente in verbo Dei, qua ratione obstabis, ne omnia fiant indifferentia?” (WA Br 5, 577, 22–25). But in a couple of weeks he seemed to have radically changed his mind: “Wurde man aber der heubtsachen einig, So wolten wir ynn diesen schweifenden Sachen weichen, leiden, thun, was wir sollen und sie wollen. Denn wo Christus das seine erhellt, wollen wir das unser gern umb seinen willen faren lassen […]. So bin ich fur mein teil willig und vrbuttig, alle solche eusserliche weise anzunemen umb friede willen, so fern mir mein gewissen damit nicht beschweret werde” (WA Br 5, 616, 84–91, 7 September [?] 1530). Cf. Abraham: 2007, particularly chapt. 2. 3 As for instance in the the comment to Gal 2,3–5 in the Galaterbriefkommentar of 1519: “Circumcidi malum non erat: sed iam Christo solo nos per gratiam iustificante cogi ad circumcisionem tanquam necessariam, ut iustificeris, hoc impium erat et in Christ iustificatricem gratiam contumeliosum” (WA 2, 478, 23–26). For this topic, cf. WA 9, 457 and WA 49, 626ff. 4 Cf. the polemic against the Irenicists in Wider Hans Worst: “Moecht aber ein guthertziger (wie mans nennet) sagen: Was schadets denn, das man Gottes wort hielte und liesse daneben diese stuecke alle oder je etliche, so leidlich weren, auch gleich wol bleiben? Antworte ich: Es muegen guthertzige Leute heissen, Sie sind aber Irrehertzige und verfuerethertzige Leute. Denn du hoerest, das nicht sein kan, Neben Gottes wort etwas anders leren, Neben Gott einem anderm dienen […]. Denn die Kirche sol und kan nicht luegen noch jrthumb leren, auch nicht in einigem stueck. Leret sie eine luegen, so ists gantz falsch” (WA 51, 515f). 5 Beside Flacius’ edition of the Coburgbriefe, cf. for instance Nikolaus von Amsdorf against Ziegler in Leipzig (Schottenloher Nr. 22939) and Joachim Westphal, Brevis comprehensio argumentorum quibus servitus ferenda in ceremoniis a Papistis imposita improbatur, Magdeburg

134

Marta Quatrale

Flacius’ new publication of the Luther’s letter written at the Veste Coburg6 – edited with some side notes explicitely referring to the current time – should be fallen under the troubled context of the definition of the adiaphora,7 as an attempt to compromise Philipp Melanchthon as supporter of the Leipziger Interim.8 “Luteri epistolae, olim in comitiis Augustanis ad te scriptae ac in tui

1549; Epistola Hamburgensium ad Melanchthonem, CR 7, 367–382, Nr. 4516 A; MBW 5495 (1549, in the German version, together with a text by Joachim Westphal, published in Magdeburg by Christian Rödinger, cf. GBSLM 17, 164f, Nr. 320 [= Bibliographiae reconditae, vol. 1, 649f, Nr. 320]. For Melanchthon’s reply to the Hamburger theologians (Johannes Aepinus, Joachim Francke, Joachim Westphal, Johannes Garcaeus the Elder, Paul von Eitzen, Servatius Eggerdes, Tilemann Epping, Johannes Högelke, Alexander Meppen, Georg Tappius), written together with Johannes Bugenhagen, cf. CR 7, 382–386 Nr. 4516 B [MBW 5504]. Cf. Hammer: 1967, 80f, Nr. 82. 6 The text has been firstly published anonymously in Latin (Epistola cuiusdam Christiani hominis ad Principem Georgium Anhaldinum in comitiis cellensibus existentem. Anno 1548), probably by Michael Lotter (cf. WA Br 14, 405, n. 29), then, as the German version, as Schrifft M. F. Jll. an Fürst Georgen zu Anhalt, auff dem tag zur Zelle, Anno M. D. XLVIII., a bit extended. For the Latin version, reprinted in his Omnia latina scripta Flacius specified “Anno 1548. mense Nouembri” (fol. D 4v–E 3v). Due to a similarity in the printing character with some texts for sure printed by Christian Rödinger in 1549, in the Weimarer Ausgabe the text is ascribed to him, rather the to Lotter (cf. WA Br 14, 406). 7 For instance, in fol. Fr he adds: “Adde nouos interimistas” and “Vnd die newen interimisten”. As for Melanchthon’s point of view, so writes he to Georg von Anhalt , motivating Flacius’ escape from Wittenberg: “Illyricus hinc abiit, aperte causam hanc dicens se nolle spectatorem esse mutationis rituum. Etsi autem nondum certo scimus, de reditu quid decreverit, arbitror tamen quaerere eum sedem, unde liberius nos criminari possit” CR 7, 356, Melanchthon to Georg von Anhalt, 29 March 1549. 8 In seven ‘Vrsachen’ appended to the German Edition of the text, Flacius clarifies “warumb diese brieffe D. M. Lutheri in den Druck oeffentlich sind aussgangen” [cf. Appendix, Text 1]. In his Apologia Flacius repeats the first, the third and the finfth reason of the publication: “Causae, propter quas putaui illas Epistolas aedendas esse, hae sunt. Primum quia omnes cupiunt iam audire de praesentibus certaminibus Lutheri sententiam. Secundo quia illae Epistolae sunt plenae confirmatione et consolatione, quibus rebus iam summopere Ecclesia indiget. Tertio quia sperabam, istos homines, etiam si meas aliorumque piorum preces et querelas contemnerent, at certe Lutheri iam ueluti e coelo monentis eos uocem magnifacturos esse” (Apologia Matthiae Flacii Illyrici ad Scholam Vitebergensem in Adiaphororum causa, Magdeburg, Michael Lotter, 1. October 1549, fol. C 4v–5r; Omnia latina scripta Matthiae Flacii Illyrici, hactenus sparsim contra Adiaphoricas fraudes et errores aedita Magdeburg, Michael Lotter 1550, fol. L 7r; in German: Entschüldigung Matthiae Flacii Jllyrici, geschrieben an die Vniuersitet zu Wittemberg, der Mittelding halben Magdeburg, Christian Rödinger 1549, fol. F 4r). So describes Flacius the Wittenberger opposition to the publication of Luther’s letters : “Hamburgi accepi literas Vitimberga, in quibus erat scriptum grauiter accusari me a Dominis, quod nec liberalis nec honesti hominis officio functus sim, qui Epistolas Lutheri ediderim, non enim esse patefacienda amicorum secreta, cuius modi sunt etiam literae” (Apologia, fol. C 5r; fol. C 4v–5r; Omnia latina scripta Matthiae Flacii Illyrici, hactenus sparsim contra Adiaphoricas fraudes et errores aedita Magdeburg, Michael Lotter 1550, fol. L 7v–8r; fol. L 7r; Entschüldigung Matthiae Flacii Jllyrici, geschrieben an die Vniuersitet zu Wittemberg, der Mittelding halben Magdeburg, Christian Rödinger 1549, fol. F 4r–v). Cf Hammer: 1967, 86; 94f.

Nikolaus von Amsdorf’s Reply to Johannes Pfeffinger

135

ignominiam haud dubie nunc editae”9so alerts Antonius Corvinus, in a letter sent to Melanchthon in the autumn of the same year. On the new edition of the Coburgbriefe Melanchthon has been officially informed on the 1st November 1549 by Joachim Camerarius,10 but, already in the spring, the Wittenberger Professor Johannes Aurifaber stated in a letter to Flacius11 that in Wittenberg informations on the publication of a “libellum epistolarum D.[octoris] M.[artini] Lutheri” have spread, whose (at the time still anonymous) editor “male fecisse” in insinuating such a charge in regard to Philipp Melanchthon’s readiness to compromise.12 The bone of contention was a gloss comment to the text “Qui si iam uiueret, nae ille Paulo durius istos pacificatores exciperet” in the Postface of the work, referring to a letter written by Luther to Justus Jonas:13 “Non ita Philippisaret διὰ τ ὰ ἄλφιτα”.14 Some months later, on the 23rd July 1549, replied Flacius in his Apologia: Aedidi et Lutheri Epistolas cum adiunctis, Scholion ‘Philippizaret’ me inscio adiectum est. Opinor autem significare, quod Lutherus non esset sequuturus Philippi sententiam sui commodi gratia, sicuti multi alii faciunt, quod notius est, quam ut probare necesse sit, et non significat Philippum aliquid impie facere sui commodi gratia. Verba enim in ‘izo’, (ut opinor) imitationem significant, ut ‘patrizo’.15

Among this series of letters sent by Luther from the Veste Coburg, there is a reply to Lazarus Spengler, upset by the attitude shown by Melanchthon during the Diet

9 25 September 1549, MBW 5637, H.E. Bindseil, Philippi Melanchthonis epistolae, Halle, 1874, 294 = Tschackert, Briefwechsel des Antonius Corvinus, Hannover/Leipzig 1900, 255–263 Nr. 292 (H 2872a). 10 MBW 5671; 5673[3]. 11 ARG 20, 62f. 12 “Quis unquam tam iniquus fuit, ut hoc crimine insimulare Philippum potuerit, quod scilicet sui ventris causa seu διὰ τὰ ἄλφιτα quicquam molitus esse visus sit? ideo quisquis est, qui haec et similia verba in margine adiecit (nam te profecto id non fecisse mihi persuadeo), puto eum male fecisse” (ARG 20, 64). 13 “Quo facto, Caussa nostra facilius vim & minˆ as feret quam dolos illos Satanicos, quos maxime hactenus timui. Vrgeant sane possessorium, Vrgeamus & nos, vt restituant Leonhardum Keser & multos alios iniquissime occisos, restituant tot animas impia doctrina perditas, restituant tot facultates fallacib[us] indulgentiis & aliis fraudibus exhaustas, restituant gloriam Dei tot blasphemiis violatam, restituant puritatem Ecclesiasticam in Personis & moribus tam fe¸de conspurcatam, Et quis omnia numeret? Tum agemus & nos de possessorio. Tamen mire placuit, sic eos diüino nutu insanire cepisse, vt hoc argumentum non pudeat proferre. Is, qui sic eos exce¸cat & confundit, vt ista turpia & absurda pro pulchris & firmis habeant, perget magis. Sinˆ t he¸c initia & auspicia manus diüine¸ nobis opitulari volentis. Sic me solor. Sed iam dudum alia vos habetis consilia, Et he¸c iam vetera sunt. Spero literas nostras (Quinquies enim saltem, philippo toties, scripsi) redditas.” (Luther to Justus Jonas, 13 July 1530, WA Br 5 Nr. 1643, 471f, cf. Jonas-BW, Nr. 186, 168, reprinted by Flacius, Aliquot epistolae, fol. C 2a). 14 “Er würde so nicht heucheln, Hern gunst, des bauchs vnd geschenck halben” (fol. Gv). 15 Apologia, fol. C 4b; Omnia latina scripta, fol. L 7r–v; Entschüldigung, fol. F 4r.

136

Marta Quatrale

of Augsburg.16 Luther, reassuring Spengler, writes on the 28th August: “Aber ich hab schon einmal drauf [scil.: on the adiaphora] geschrieben und schreibe itzt abermal”,17 and in the same day, to Justus Jonas: “Ego […] nostram causam Christi commendavi.”18 As observed by Bebermeyer in the introduction to the text in the Weimarer Ausgabe, Luther must be referring here to a document in which the Catholic proposals are precisely the subject. This applies only to two possible texts: a Gutachten19 written by Luther in those days, and appended to the letter to Spengler in the Weimarer Ausgabe, or to a letter written to the Elector Johann Friedrich von Sachsen.20 The hypothesis that in the letter to Spengler Luther is referring to a text written to his fellows in Augsburg is substantiated by a letter written by Johannes Brenz to Jsenmann on the 3rd September, in which he states: “Mitto tibi de ea re iudicium Lutheri nostri,”21 and this is likely to be referring to 16 Spengler’s concern is expressed in the report of the council in Nuremberg Von des Raths zu Nürnberg Auszufriedenhet mit den bisherigen Religionshandlungen, wobei er insonderheit auf Philipp Melanchthon nicht wohl zu sprechen gewesen ist (reproduced following Chyträus in Walch, 16, Col. 1462ff) of the 26th August too. 17 WA Br 5, Nr. 1707a, Walch, Vol, 1,16, 1786; Walch, Vol. 2, 16, 1478; de Wette 4, 158; Hausdorff: 1741, 57; cf. Enders 8, 237, Luther to Spengler [cf. Appendix, Text 2]. 18 WA Br 5, Nr. 1706. 19 WA Br 5, p. 589, Nr. 1707b [Cf. Appendix, Text 3]. 20 WA Br 5, 572ff, Nr. 1697, Luther to the Elector Johann of Saxony [Cf. Appendix, Text 4]. Enders concludes that, as long as it was written in German, also the Gutachten is to be intended as written for the Elector Johann (Enders 8, 229). Bebermeyer on the contrary observes: “scheint mir die Randbemerkung zu Z. 187, die ich ebensowenig wie Enders ganz enträtseln kann, deren Anfang aber doch wohl sicher zu lesen ist: ‘Scribatis omnia concedendo’, zu beweisen, daß unser Bedenken vielmehr für die Freunde in Augsburg bestimmt war und ihnen Material liefern sollte.” Following Bebermeyer’s hypothesis, Luther’s Bedenken, sent to his fellows in Augsburg, and enclosed to the letter to Spengler, the Bedenken the Weimarer Konvolut H 65 – probably unpublished and composed, as the surrounding pieces, by Luther – might be an addition to the section of Episcopal jurisdiction in our Gutachten, the one of August 28th. In this collection of records, in fact, beside the negotiations in Schweinfurt and Nürnberg, Luther’s Bedenken of May 16th, May 21st, and the precedings are sorted one after another (respectively, at fol. 84, 90 and 93) followed by a stapled section (fol. 95 to 103: 99=WA Br 4, 421, Nr. 1246; 100=WA Br 4, 262, Nr. 1904; 101=WA Br 4, 259, Nr. 1903), corresponding to a series of copies owned by Georg Rörer and a white leaf. In the Weimarer Ausgabe, it has been published in WA Br 6, 330–331 [Cf. Appendix, Text 5]. In the Weimarer Konvolut H 65 it is followed (fol. 105–106) by a Bedenken about the Adiaphora written on the 3rd (?) July 1530 by Melanchthon, together with Luther and Jonas, WA Br 6, 331; CR 2, 162 [cf. Appendix, Text 6]. 21 “Credo, te nunc, mi Isenmanne, legisse nostra media quae adversariis proposuimus, et quanquam prima fronte dura tibi videantur, tamen aliter iudicabis, si olim me referente causas intellexeris, quas nunc enumerare non est opportunum. Vulgus traducit nos corruptos pecunia a papistis, eo quod vulgi libidini non serviamus. Qui sibi meliores videtur, impia vocant, et nos defectionis accusant propterea quod iurisdictionem episcopis obtulerimus. Habemus quosvis fere obvios praeceptores, et nemo est, qui non sua opinione meliores conditiones propuisset. Tale praemium ferimus nostrae solicitudinis et laboris. Mitto tibi de

Nikolaus von Amsdorf’s Reply to Johannes Pfeffinger

137

Luther’s Gutachten adressed to the theologians in Augsburg, enclosed to the letter as copy, as indirectly stated immediately afterwards: “Literas autem illas Lutheri manu scriptas.” As to dating, Virck,22 due to the topic of the adiaphora, places the letter on the 26th of August, but, as Enders notes, Luther had probably no time to write that day, besides the various letters, the Gutachten too. If the negotiations in Augsburg should still be effective, he must have written it in any case immediately afterwards, perhaps on the 27th. If Bebermeyer’s assumption about the passage in Luther to Spengler is right, then the Gutachten would have arisen on the 28th. Particularly interesting is the fact that Luther’s Gutachten has been edited and reprinted by Flacius in reaction to the Augsburger Interim as Flugschrift,23 toea re iudicium Lutheri nostri. Literas autem illas Lutheri manu scriptas, quibus me Philippus donavit, diligenter adserves, ne describantur et evulgentur. Eas etiam literas, quas nuper ad te de Hessi clanculario discessu dedi, fideliter custodi aut combure, ne in alienas manis perveniant. Est enim hic captus quidam ecclesiastes Zwinglianae factionis, non eo nomine (ita enim imperator excusavit) quod sit sacramentarius, sed quod palam dixit, Caesarem voluisse capere Hessorum Principem. Vides, quid praetexatur, ut opprimamur. Caeterum media nostra, a quibus nec latum unguem hactenus discedere voluimus, Caesari oblata sunt, non ut iudice, sed ut per ipsum liceat in ea professions quiete vivere. Quid Caesar pronuntiaturus sit ex sententia Papae (dicitur emin papae, ad quem media nostra misit, nuncium expectare) omnes, quotquot hi sumus, ardenter expectamus” (CR 2, 338, Nr. 882). 22 ZKG 9, 312. 23 Bedencken Doctoris Martini Lutheri, Auff dem Reichstage zu Augspurgk im xxx. yare gestellet. Jtem ein ander Bedencken auff den tag zu Schmalkalden den Ersten Martij. des 40. yars, Der Theologen, So zu solcher zeit daselbst gewesen, welcher namen zu ruecke verzeichnet. Zu diesen ferlichen zeiten nuetzlich vnd von noeten zu lesen, Damit yederman bericht werde, Was in Religions sachen nachzugeben, oder nicht koenne nachgegeben werden. The text has been reprinted in 1549 in Magdeburg, both in a Latin and a German version. Latin versions: ALIQVOT || EPISTOLAE REVERENDI || PATRIS PIAE MEMORIAE D.|| Martini Lutheri quibusdam Theologis || ad Augustana comitia. Anno 1530. scri/||ptae, de conciliationibus CHristi & || Belial disserentes … || Et quaedam alia lectu digna. Ed. by Matthias Flacius Illyricus, Magdeburg: [Lotter, Michael], 1549 [VD 16 L 3724]; ALIQVOT || EPISTOLAE REVERENDI || PATRIS PIAE MEMORIAE D.|| Martini Lutheri quibusdam Theologis || ad Augustana Comitia. Anno 1530. scri/||ptae, de conciliationibus Christi & || Belial disserentes … || Et quaedam alia lectu digna. Ed. by Matthias Flacius Illyricus, Magdeburg: [Lotter, Michael], 1549 [VD 16 L 3725]. German versions: Etliche Brieffe/ des || Ehrwirdigen Herrn D. Martini || Luthers seliger gedechtnis/ an die Theologos auff || den Reichstag zu Augspurg geschrieben/ Anno || M.D.XXX. Von der vereinigung Christi || vnd Belials/ … || Verdeudscht.|| Jtem etliche andere schrifften/ n[ue]tzlich || vnd tr[oe]stlich zu Lesen.|| … || (Eine schrifft Joannis Brentij von || den Adiaphoris). Ed. by Matthias Flacius Illyricus d.Ä., Magdeburg: [Lotter, Michael], 1549 [VD 16 L 3726]; Etliche Brieffe/ des || Ehrwirdigen Herrn D. Martini || Luthers seliger gedechtnis/ an die Theologos auff || den Reichtag zu Augspurg geschrieben/ Anno || M.D.XXX. Von der vereinigung Chirsti || vnd Belials … || Verdeudscht.|| Jtem etliche andere Shricfften/ n[ue]tzlich || vnd tr[oe]stlich zu lesen.|| Jtem zwo schriffte der Theologen zu Wittern=||berg . ..||(von der vereinigung der Euangeli=||schen mit den Papisten.||) Jtem eine schrifft der Prediger von Hamburg || an die Theologen zu Wittemberg.|| … ||(von Mitteldingen … ||)(Eine Schrifft Joannis Brentij/ võ || den Mitteldingen. Ed. by Matthias Flacius Illyricus d.Ä., Magdeburg: [Lotter, Michael], 1549 [VD 16 L 3727]. Cf. GBSLM 17, 155, Nr. 299 [=

138

Marta Quatrale

gether with another strongly interconnected Gutachten, written – following Luther’s own dating in the accompanying letter – in Wittenberg in the context of the redaction of the forthcoming Confessio Augustana Variata on the 18th January 1540.24 Melanchthon reaction against Flacius in the Open Letter written on the 1rd October 1549,25 and Flacius’ reply26 – in which he accuses Melanchthon to Bibliographiae reconditae, vol. 1, 640, Nr. 299]. Despite the impossibility to know for sure who the printer of the the German version was – Christian Rödinger, as stated in the Weimarer Ausgabe, or Michael Lotter, as argued for instance by Kaufmann, cf. Kaufmann: 2003, 500, n.3; Kaufmann: 2006, 75, n.32 –, the affinity with the with the Coburgbriefe, published by Lotter, and much more the presence of the same print character for both the versions seems to suggest the latter as plausible printer. Concerning the printing process, etc., cf. WA Br 14. 400–408; 587–592. 24 The Gutachen, adressed for the Elector Johann Friedrich of Saxony, bears the signatures of Luther, Melanchthon, Jonas, Bugenhagen, Cruciger and Myconius, WA Br 6, 330–331; MBW 2352; CR 3, 926–945 Nr. 1918; WA Br 9, 19–35, Nr. 3436 together with 13, 282 [Cf. Appendix, Text 7]. In January 1545 a text written by Johannes Cochläus, Consyderatio Iohannis Cochlaei de futuro Concordiae in Religione Tractatu Vuormatiae habendo, has been printed by Alexander Weißenhorn in Ingolstadt (ADB. 41, 608f, ZKG 18, 453). In the dedication to Cardinal Ercole Gonzaga, Cochlaeus Emperor Charles V’s announcement in the Speyer Reichstag that he was going to work on the next Worms Reichstag on the elimination of the faith fief, and so on. In order to avoid the convinction that the Catholic princes and estates in Germany were to blame for the Emperor’s inability to effect their faith in several religious conversations, it seemed appropriate for Charles V. to reply with the following “adduo concionatorum Partis protestantium scripta, quorum unum Latine e Wittenberga ad Nurembergenses concionatores datum est, alterum Teuthonice ad principes et status Smalcaldiani foederis scriptum esse dicitur ante annos quinque. Quod, si me non fallit, ex phrasi et stylo coniectura, e Wittenberga datum est utrunque communi concionatorum et sectae complicum consilio Latinum a Melanchthone, Teuthonicum a Luthero exaratum.” Already in a text dated 22 November 1544, together with a letter of the Wittenberger teologians to the Nuremberg clergy (= WA Br 9, nr. 3444), Clochläus criticises again the Bedenken, adding a similar remark: Latinae praefationis architectum fuisse puto Melanchthonem, Teuthonicae Lutherum (fol. B 3a). That means, at least, that Cochläus had both the writing in hand, in that period. Concerning a later reception, Walch, who wrote the text from Schmalkaldische Artikel Wittenberg 1575 (WA 50, 180f), also believes that it was Luther who write our Bedenken. Christoph Pezel quotes the Bedenken in Christliche Beratschlagungen und Bedenken und andere nützliche und heilsame Erinnerungen und Antworten des weiland hocherleuchten gelehrten Manns Philippi Melanchthonis, in teutscher Sprach gestellet von vielen fürnehmen Religionssachen, attribuiting the text to Melanchthon, due to the many close similarities with the to the letter to the Nuremberg clergy. (Enders 12, 3701) also identifies in Melanchthon the main author, due to the several references to the Augsburger events. But he refers to some handwritten additions made by Luther to Melanchthon’s work – which happen to be for sure not from Luther’s, but from Melanchthon’s and Cruciger’s hand, cf. WA Br 9, 19–35, Nr. 3436. 25 Reply to Melanchthon’s Open Letter on the 1st October 1549, CR 7, 477–482; MSA 6, 423–429; MBW vol. 5, Nr. 5643. 26 “Item quod in magnis periculis aliquantulum imbecillior esse soleat [Melanchthon], ut epistolae Lutheri Augustam scriptae clare indicant, & praeteritum bellum plus satis indicavit, in quo ei nulla urbs satis munita fuit, nisi ea quae nullum hostem habuit”. Responsio ad epistolam Philippi Melanchthonis, MBW Vol. 5 Nr. 5655; Hammer: 1967, 90, Nr. 97 (VD 16 F 1490; Ex. MF 739 Nr. 1344) Then re-published in Omnia scripta latina.

Nikolaus von Amsdorf’s Reply to Johannes Pfeffinger

139

act cowardly, contradicting Luther’s directives in his letters regarding the Diet of Augsburg – seems to confirm the series of events concerning Luther’s Gutachten to Spengler.

Johann Pfeffinger’s Use of the ‘Character’ Luther and Nikolaus von Amsdorf ’s Counterreaction Much more than Philipp Melanchthon, the antiadiaphoristic polemic of the Magdeburger Herrgots Kanzley affected the Leipziger Superintendent and Professor of Theology Johann Pfeffinger, more involved than Melanchthon in Maurice of Saxony’s political manoeuvery in which the application of the Interim in Saxony consisted. As, in 1550, the theological disagreement between the Magdeburger theologians and Maurice’s supporters became a proper war, before the Landtag in Torgau, in January 1550, Pfeffinger, beside the usual personal attack against his opponents, wrote a text to support the military action against the city of Magdeburg with a theological justification, defining Luther “ein echter Adiaphoristen.” The fact that Maurice at the end refused an active support of his political action against the Magdeburger should be attributed to the harsh resistance of the Magdeburger in this sense. In November 1550 almost simultaneously a massive, plurilateral attack against Maurice of Saxony and the Albertinian theologians appeared: Nikolaus Gallus wrote a Gegenbericht against what stated by Pfeffinger, Matthias Flacius wrote a sharp attack ad personam (Widder die newe Reformation); even the Hamburger theologian Joachim Westphal published in Magdeburg, a counterreaction based on a compendium of Luther’s excerpts (Confutatio sophistici); for Nikolaus von Amsdorf, as personal collaborator and friend of Luther, the topic was even more uncomfortable. In the period in which he lived in Magdeburg as Exul Christi he lived his role as personified guarantor of Luther’s heritage, writing Das Doctor Martinus kein Adiaphorist gewesen ist and plenty of texts against Pfeffinger in the subsequent months. Amsdorf ’s aim was to criticise two polemical works written by Johann Pfeffinger, Traktat Von den Traditionibus, Ceremonis, oder Mitteldingen, Christlicher warer Bericht,27 and Grüntlicher und Warhafftiger Bericht der vorigen und jetzigen, für und nach dem Kriege ergangenen Handlungen, von den Adiaphoris oder Mitteldingen.28 While the latter text represents a mere report of Pfeffinger’s position pertaining the controversy, the former is a biting attack against the Magdeburgers. They are – so Pfeffinger – the ones, who, possessed, ‘epicureists’, 27 Leipzig 1550, VD 16 P 2357. 28 VD 16 P 2324.

140

Marta Quatrale

entered into the security of a great fortress but will therefore soon be ashamed and withdrawn, to clarify that pure doctrine has not been abolished and that no abuse has been introduced. In it, Pfeffinger refers to a Gutachten written for the events in Augsburg in 1530, shortly before the edition of the Confessio Augustana (1530), whose handwritten version, preserved by a pious man, he had the occasion to read and to copy. Und setzet D. Martinus Lutherus seliger gedechtnis / in seinem Rhatschlag / mit eigner handt geschriben / gegen Augspurg auff dem Reichstag / Anno 1530 / Welche handtschrifft noch auff disen tag ein rechter frommer gelerter christ und hohes standes bey sich hat / die ich gesehen / gelesen / und derselben eine warhafftige Copiam habe / unter ander auch dise wort. Frage. Ob man etliche ausserliche weise in der kirchen solle wider anrichten / auff das ein vergleichung sey allenthaben / damit wir nicht Schismatici gescholten werden uber unnötigen stücken / Oder ob man festsoll halten uber der Christlichen freiheit? Antwort. Wo man der heubtsachen nicht einig wirdt / was hilffts von disen schweffenden sachen vil geben oder nehmen? Würde man aber der heubtsachen einig / so wollten wir inn disen schweiffenden sachen weichen / leiden / thun / was wir sollen / und sie wöllen. Dann wo Christus das seine erhelt / wöllen wir das unsere unb seinet willen gerne faren lassen. Aber damit sie nicht dencken / das wir steiff sein wöllen / obgleich die haubsach spenning bleibt / so bin ich für mein theil willig und erbötig / alle solche eusserliche weisen anzunemen / umb friede willen / so ferne mir mein gewissen damit nicht beschwert werde / das ich mich doch sonst alle zeit fast in allen büchen erboten habe / Wölt got / das sie es also wölten annemen / Aber gewissen damit zu beschweren / das kan mein Christus nicht leiden. Haec ille. Vnd diser Rhatschlag ist an andern örten gedrückt / aber diser punct aus gelassen.29

Pfeffinger’s statement, that this excerpt have been omitted in several edition must be false: the text is for sure spurious,30 and the text to which Pfeffinger is referring is the Bericht written by Luther at the end of August 1530, and appended to the letter to Spengler. Beside Das Doctor Martinus kein Adiaphorist gewesen ist, in which the argumentation is primarily concerned with the question about the right interpretation of Luther’s statements regarding the adiaphora,31 particularly interesting seems to be another text, Etliche Sprüche aus Doctoris Lutheri schiffen, in

29 Traktat Von den Traditionibus, Ceremonis, oder Mitteldingen, Christlicher warer Bericht Leipzig 1550, VD 16 P 2357, Cviijv – Dir. 30 Cf. Kaufmann: 2006, 75. 31 Here he shows that Luther’s authority cannot be used in the sense advocated by Pfeffinger. Within given limits – that is: with regard to the topic of the “weak” – Luther had been ready to handle indiscriminately Adiaphora. Otherwise, however, he pleaded for the abolition of nonwritten customs. Therefore, Pfeffinger’s justification of the introduction of such practices cannot be explained through Luther’s words. On the contrary, the reintroduction of this kind of non-justified ceremonies hides and betrays the pure doctrine of the Gospel, so only serves the interests of the Papacy and thus the Antichrist itself.

Nikolaus von Amsdorf’s Reply to Johannes Pfeffinger

141

which Amsdorf seems to deal with Pfeffinger’s standpoint – and his programmatic use of a spurious text – in a particular way. Amsdorf ’s text Etliche Sprüche is apparently one of the several collections of Luther’s excerpts.32 Interesting is the fact that the text – in the context of a harsh counterreaction against Pfeffinger’s theological statements justifying Maurice of Saxony’s policy against the city of Magdeburg – recalls Luther’s argumentation referring to Gal 3, one of the loci classici for the topic of the adiaphora, in the biting anti-roman interpretation of the Letter to Galatians (1531), the so-called Großer Galaterbriefkommentar. Surprisingly, Amsdorf never refers directly to the text under consideration in Pfeffinger’s attack, even if it was – as newly appeared Flugschriften in Magdeburg – of course available. In this composition of quotes of the Galatervorlesung, combined with some excerpts of Luther’s most biting attack against the Papacy-Antichrist, Wider das Bapstum zu Rom vom Teuffel gestifft (1545), the task of clarifying how ridiculous it would be to ascribe Luther adiaphoristic positions in Amsdorf ’s view seems actually to be assigned to Luther’s own words, reporting examples of Luther’s sharp criticism against the Roman Church.

Conclusion If I am arguing right, Amsdorf ’s refusal to use the original text, quoted following a spurious version by Pfeffinger, and for sure available to him, has (paradoxically!) much to do with Flacius’ appropriation of it in his new edition as Magdeburger Flugschrift. Becoming a ‘product’ of the Herrgotts Kanzley, it became namely a non-neutral, compromised text whose direct reference has been avoided by Amsdorf to demonstrate the supposed ‘falsification’ in the text used by Pfeffinger. Amsdorf rather quotes it indirectly referring – almost verbatim – to Luther’s exegesis of Gal 3, the standard text for the topic of the adiaphora. And he does it on the basis of a still neutral text in regard of the internal controversies – the Großer Galaterbriefkommentar –, chronologically very close to Luther’s position at the time of the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, having in this respect the advantage to be in itself a much more harsher text as the Gutachten was, against the Roman church. Does the use of Luther’s ipsissima verba as authoritative source represent a petitio principii in the sense that they might be interpreted, and even falsified, but not contradicted? Yes. If my hypothesis concerning the causes of Amsdorf ’s rejection of an immediate proof is right, this might represent an example of the 32 Amsdorf presents a German translation of the Latin text of the Galatervorlesung, but nonetheless its excerpts are actually really accurate. [Cf. Appendix, Text 8].

142

Marta Quatrale

central role of the appropriation of Luther’s words in the internal struggles right after Luther’s death: to obtain a proper confutation of Pfeffinger’s position, Amsdorf avoids an immediately available direct proof, using some Luther’s words not explicitely involved in this process – and so more reliable. Namely, in the context of an attempt to state a pure Lutheran legacy, Luther’s ipsissima verba, if not yet somehow ‘compromised’ by the polemic seem to be more reliable than a direct, but compromised proof.

Appendix [Text 1] Flacius’ Vrsachen “Die Erste vrsach ist, das alle rechte Christen jetzt in diesen groswichtigen sachen von den Adiaphoris, damit man jetzt Christum vnd Belial vereinigen will, begeren des Ehrwirdigen Doctoris Martini L. meinung zu hoeren, damit sie wissen mügen, was jhnen zu thun oder zu lassen sey. Die andere vrsach ist, das es sehr von noeten ist, das man etlichen vnuerschampten leuten, welche alle grewel des Babstumbs aus des D. M. Luthers Büchern beweren vnd beweisen wollen, als Eissleb. [scil. Johann Agricola] D. Interim vnd jhres gleichen, jhr Gotteslesterisch maul stopffe. Die dritte ist, das sie voll trostes vnd sterckung sind (welcher denn zu dieser fehrlichen zeit die Kirche gantz wol bedarff), welchs auch alle, die sie gelesen, bekennen. Die vierde ist, Das es von noeten gewest ist, zu beweisen, das die klugheit von den Mitteldingen nicht von oben herab aus einem weisen, Gottseligem vnd Christlichem rathe des P[hilippus] keme, sondern hie auff Erden aus gewoenlicher schwacheit, so er in grosser gefahr pflegt zu fülen, wachsse, auff das, wenn man des brunnen natur erkennet, auch deste leichter von dem wasser, so daraus quellet, vrteilen künte. Die fünffte ist, das, weil die Adiaphoristen anderer fromen Christen warnung so leichtlich koennen verachten, das sie doch dieses grossen vnd tewren Propheten trewe warnung, der sie jtzt gleich vom Hiemel herab warnet, gros vnd tewr achteten. Die sechste ist, das nicht allein der Luther diese Briefe zum Philippo, sondern auch der heilige Geist sie zu der gantzen Christlichen Kirchen durch den grossen Propheten geschrieben hat, Denn sie sind zu vnser warnung vnd erinnerung geschrieben. Die letzte ist, auff das die leute moechten wissen, das gleich wie jener zeit in grosser gefahr, vnd hernach gantzer XIX jar vber, glücklich die ware Religion, durch ein frey bekentnis, auch wieder des Teuffels, des Antichristes, vnd der Tyrannen willen, erhalten worden ist, das also auch jtzt die Warheit mit einem standhafftigen bekentnis, leiden, vnd fleissigen Gebet zu Christo vmb seine Veterliche hülffe, kündte besser erhalten werden, denn wenn man den Teuffel vnd die Gotlosen, mit nachgebung von der Religion, versünen will. Denn wenn man das selbige mal

Nikolaus von Amsdorf’s Reply to Johannes Pfeffinger

143

eine verneinung hette gemacht, so hette man fürwar jtzund nicht ein füncklein von Goettlicher Warheit” (fol. A ijr–v).

[Text 2] Luther to Spengler “[…] Jch hab aus Euer Schrift vernommen, wie herzlich es Euch bewegt, daß die Unsern zu Augspurg sich sollen etwas zu weit begeben haben. Aber ich hab schon einmal drauf geschrieben und schreibe itzt abermal, hoffe auch, es solle nicht Not haben. Denn ob sich Christus gleich ein wenig würde schwach stellen, ist er darumb nicht vom Stuhl gestoßen. Jch habe die Sache Gott befohlen und achte auch, ich hab sie so fein in meiner Hand behalten, daß mir kein Mensch etwas drinnen vergeben werde noch verwahrlosen könne, solange Christus und ich eines bleiben. Denn ob etwas würde gleich zuviel nachgelassen (als ich mich nicht versehe), wohlan, so ist die Sach nicht verloren, sondern ein neuer Krieg angefangen, damit unser Widersacher gar überzeugt würden, wie redlich sie gehandelt haben. Denn man wird außer und uber das Evangelium nichts nachlassen können, welchs Teils insidiae das Feld behalten. Denn es liegen in dem Furbehalt des Evangelii wohl andere insidiae, denn die Widersacher itzund können uns fürwenden, quia quid est sapientia hominis contra Deum? Drumb sei Euer Herz zufrieden, wir wöllen nichts nachgeben haben wider das Evangelium. Geben aber die Unsern etwas nach wider das Evangelium, so soll der Teufel jenes Teil betreten; das sollt Jhr sehen. […]”

[Text 3] Gutachten Probably Appended to Luther’s Letter to Spengler “[…] Jch hab aus Euer Schrift vernommen, wie herzlich es Euch bewegt, daß die Unsern zu Augspurg sich sollen etwas zu weit begeben haben. Aber ich hab schon einmal drauf geschrieben und schreibe itzt abermal, hoffe auch, es solle nicht Not haben. Denn ob sich Christus gleich ein wenig würde schwach stellen, ist er darumb nicht vom Stuhl gestoßen. Jch habe die Sache Gott befohlen und achte auch, ich hab sie so fein in meiner Hand behalten, daß mir kein Mensch etwas drinnen vergeben werde noch verwahrlosen könne, solange Christus und ich eines bleiben. Denn ob etwas würde gleich zuviel nachgelassen (als ich mich nicht versehe), wohlan, so ist die Sach nicht verloren, sondern ein neuer Krieg angefangen, damit unser Widersacher gar überzeugt würden, wie redlich sie gehandelt haben. Denn man wird außer und uber das Evangelium nichts nachlassen können, welchs Teils insidiae das Feld behalten. Denn es liegen in dem Furbehalt des Evangelii wohl andere insidiae, denn die Widersacher itzund können uns fürwenden, quia quid est sapientia hominis contra Deum? Drumb sei Euer Herz

144

Marta Quatrale

zufrieden, wir wöllen nichts nachgeben haben wider das Evangelium. Geben aber die Unsern etwas nach wider das Evangelium, so soll der Teufel jenes Teil betreten; das sollt Jhr sehen. […]”

[Text 4] Luther’s Gutachten for the Elector Johann Friedrich von Sachsen “[…] auff der vnsern teyl artickel ist das meine gute meynung: Das die widdersacher begeren von vns zu leren, das einerley gestallt des sacraments sey auch recht, vnd solle nicht geboten, sondern indifferens sein vnd frey, beider gestallt zu brauchen &c. […] Darumb konnen wir nicht willigen noch leren, das einerley gestalt recht sey. […] Auch so glauben sie selbs nicht, das indifferens sey, denn sie haben viel druber verbrand, veriagt, verfolget vnd fur grosse ketzerey verdampt. Darumb mussen wir nicht allein Gottes vnd vnser, sondern auch yhrer selbs halben nicht zulassen, das indifferens sey, Denn damit musten wir sie schelten als morder vnd bosewicht, die ein indifferens hetten fur ketzerey verdampt vnd verfolget. Weil sie es nu selbs nicht gleuben, das indifferens sey, so konnen wirs viel weniger also leren, Es sey, das sie widderruffen vnd widderbringen alle, die sie druber verfolget haben. […] Von den winckelmessen ist eben dasselbige zu antworten. […] Endlich wollen wir alles leiden vnd weichen, was ynn unser macht stehet. Aber was ynn vnser macht nicht stehet, bitten wir, das sie es nicht wolten von vns begeren. Was aber Gotts wort ist, das ist nicht vnser macht. Vnd was on Gottes wort gestifftet ist zum Gottesdienst, ist auch nicht vnser macht anzunemen. Darumb die fasten vnd feyren, so man sich erbeut, konnen wir auch nicht weiter annemen, denn so fern sie von welltlicher oberkeit als eine welltliche ordnung gestellet wird. Denn das heisst alles welltlich, was man mit Ceremonien schmuckt, als kleider, geberde, fasten, feyren, Sintemal solchs Gott der vernunfft vnterworffen vnd befolhen hat, das sie frey damit handeln mag, Gen¯ 2. Denn es ist yrdissch ding vnd ein wesen auff erden, welchs alles vnter der vernunfft ist, durch das Wort: Dominami terre¸. Weil nu welltliche oberkeit solcher vernunfft hohest werck ist, kan sie hierinn schaffen vnd gebieten. […]”

[Text 5] Luther’s Gutachten in Weimarer Konvolut H 65 “Ein Bedenken. Ob’s nicht gut sein sollt, daß m. gnädigster Herr zum Überfluß ein Solchs fürnehme gegen die Bischöfe, so an E. Kurf. Gn. Landen stoßen, und sie schriftlich ersucht und anzeigen ließe: Nachdem sie bisher in der evangelischen Sachen nichts getan und Sein Kurf. Gn. Land und Untertanen zu versorgen mit Gottes Wort unterlassen, daraus S. Kurf. Gn. gezwungen, Aufruhr, Zwietracht und allerlei Unrat, so aus ungleicher Lehre ausbricht, zu verkommen, selbs das

Nikolaus von Amsdorf’s Reply to Johannes Pfeffinger

145

Beste, so sie vermocht, als in der höhesten Not, dabei zu tun, aber auf daß sie dennoch zum Überfluß noch sehen, daß S. Kurf. Gn. nichts sucht denn allein, daß in S. Kurf. Gn. Landen zu Heil den armen Seelen das Euangelium und gleiche Lehre gehalten und friedlich, einträchtiglich gelebt würden, so wären S. Kurf. Gn. noch geneigt und begehrend, daß sie selbs, die Bischöfe, ihres Ampts wollten pflegen und in S. Kurf. Gn. Landen foddern und helfen, solch Euangelium zu lehren und Fried zu erhalten, wie sie fur Gott und der Welt schuldig sind, weil sie wollen Bischof und Hirten sein. Wo sie aber nicht wollten, daß sie alsdenn zu bedenken hätten, es könnte S. Kurf. Gn. als ein weltlicher Fürst so wenig in S. Kurf. Gn. Landen leiden Zwietracht und ungleiche Lehre dem Euangelio zuwider, so wenig als sie selbs in ihren Bistum leiden können &c.., und sie, die Bischof, damit S. Kurf. Gn. aller Ding als mit höchster Not dringen, selbs dreinzusehen, damit S. Kurf. Gn. nicht auch fur Gott teilhaftig erfunden werde solcher der Bischofe Versäumen an S. Kurf. Gn. Untertanen. Solchs, hielt ich, soltt zu mehrem Glimpf fur der Welt und zu mehrem Trost des Gewissens nicht unnütz sein, damit man rühmen könne, es wären doch ja alle Wege versucht, den Bischöfen, so viel als Gottes Wort leidet, zu willfahren &c.”.

[Text 6] Melanchthon’s Gutachten in Weimarer Konvolut H 65 “Bedenken von den Entlichen mitteln. m. gnedigster herr, bitte auf dise zween artikel zu arbeiten, vtramque speciem vndd Coniugium sacerdotum et religiosarum personarum vns nicht zu verbieten oder zu damnirn. Denn sollt vtraque species verbotten werden bey vns, wurden viel schreklicher offensiones volgen, das viel leut sich vom sacrament zihen wurden, viel auch sine sacramento sterben. Jtem durch solche mutaciones wurde das sacrament noch jn weiter verachtung khomen, das zu verhuten jst, sonderlich jn diser zeit; so grosse verachtung der sacrament durch zwingli entstanden ist. Jtem, wir konnen auch nicht willigen jn solche prohibitio contra ordinacionem christi. De coniugio clericorum, sollten wir die jetzigen pfarner vnd prediger vom ministerio absetzen, wurde nicht moglich seyn, andere tuchtige priester zu finden, wie man weis, wilch mangel ist jetzund an zimlichen priestern, sonderlich an denen orten, da Coniugium nicht gestattet wirt. Nu jst ie beswerlich, das man lieber dulden will, das die religio bey so vieln leuten gantz vntergehe, denn das solch constitutiones gelindert werden, so doch dise linderung nicht ist contra fidem oder bonos mores, schadet auch niemant. Viel beschwerlicher wer es, das man die sahen sollt zu krieg lassen khomen, so man durch solche leichte mittel friden machen khan, dazu sonst viel gutes weiter anrichten. Denn zu hoffen, das jnn allen andern stuken weg, zu friden dienlich, zu finden sind.”

146

Marta Quatrale

[Text 7] Gutachten of the Year 1540 “Ein Bedenken. Ob’s nicht gut sein sollt, daß m. gnädigster Herr zum Überfluß ein Solchs fürnehme gegen die Bischöfe, so an E. Kurf. Gn. Landen stoßen, und sie schriftlich ersucht und anzeigen ließe: Nachdem sie bisher in der evangelischen Sachen nichts getan und Sein Kurf. Gn. Land und Untertanen zu versorgen mit Gottes Wort unterlassen, daraus S. Kurf. Gn. gezwungen, Aufruhr, Zwietracht und allerlei Unrat, so aus ungleicher Lehre ausbricht, zu verkommen, selbs das Beste, so sie vermocht, als in de höhesten Not, dabei zu tun, aber auf daß sie dennoch zum Überfluß noch sehen, daß S. Kurf. Gn. nichts sucht denn allein, daß in S. Kurf. Gn. Landen zu Heil den armen Seelen das Euangelium und gleiche Lehre gehalten und friedlich, einträchtiglich gelebt würden, so wären S. Kurf. Gn. noch geneigt und begehrend, daß sie selbs, die Bischöfe, ihres Ampts wollten pflegen und in S. Kurf. Gn. Landen foddern und helfen, solch Euangelium zu lehren und Fried zu erhalten, wie sie fur Gott und der Welt schuldig sind, weil sie wollen Bischof und Hirten sein. Wo sie aber nicht wollten, daß sie alsdenn zu bedenken hätten, es könnte S. Kurf. Gn. als ein weltlicher Fürst so wenig in S. Kurf. Gn. Landen leiden Zwietracht und ungleiche Lehre dem Euangelio zuwider, so wenig als sie selbs in ihren Bistum leiden können &c.., und sie, die Bischof, damit S. Kurf. Gn. aller Ding als mit höchster Not dringen, selbs dreinzusehen, damit S. Kurf. Gn. nicht auch fur Gott teilhaftig erfunden werde solcher der Bischofe Versäumen an S. Kurf. Gn. Untertanen. Solchs, hielt ich, soltt zu mehrem Glimpf fur der Welt und zu mehrem Trost des Gewissens nicht unnütz sein, damit man rühmen könne, es wären doch ja alle Wege versucht, den Bischöfen, so viel als Gottes Wort leidet, zu willfahren &c..”

[Text 8] Amsdorf’s Florilegium “Das er tzunder vnter euch Gecreutziget ist. […] Sie sind nicht allein Abtruennige Christen / so Gottes Gnade / Christus leiden vnd sterben verwerffen / Sondern auch seine Moerder / die ihn so greulich Creutzigen.” (Aijr–Aijv) = “Quod sit in vobis crucifixus. […] non solum esse abnegatores et homicidas, sed etiam sceleratissimos crucifixores Christo” (WA 40 I, 325b, 11–12). “Wer hett gemeint / das er ein solche schreckliche suende hette sein sollen / das einer ein Mesfaff oder Muench wuerde?” (Aiijr) = “Sed quis unquam credidisset aut intellexisset tam horribile et abominandum esse flagitium, fieri religiosum (Sic enim ipsi loquuntur), hoc est, fieri sacerdotem Missarium, Monachum aut Monacham?” (WA 40 I, 325b, 16–18). “Was kuent aber schrecklichers gesagt werden / denne das des Babsts Reich / ein Reich sey / deren / die da nichts thun / denn das sie mit ihnen allerheiligsten

Nikolaus von Amsdorf’s Reply to Johannes Pfeffinger

147

vnd koestlichen wercken (vernim die Messen) Gottes Son Ihesum Christum nur jmmerdar verspeisen vnd Creutzigen etc.” (Aiijr) = “Quid autem potest dici horribilius quam regnum Papistarum esse regnum consputantium et denuo crucifigentium filium DEI CHRISTUM? Christum enim qui semel est crucifixus et resurrexit” (WA 40 I, 325b, 19–22). “Derhalben ein jeder / dem Gottes sachen zu hertzen gehen / der mache sich / so balde er kan / aus dieser Babylon / vnd erschrecke / wenn er nur das verfluchte Baptstum nennen hoeret. Denn das Gottlose wesen vnd grewel darinne / ist so vber die masse gros / das es niemand mit worten erreichen / noch ausreden kan. Es ist nicht mueglich das mans ersehen koenne / denn mit Geistlichen augen.” (Aiijv) = “Quicunque igitur serio afficitur pietate, fugiat quam ocyssime ex ista Babylone et exhorrescat vel tantum audito nomine Papatus. Nam tanta est eius impietas et abominatio, ut nemo eam verbis consequi possit, neque cernitur nisi oculis spiritualibus” (WA 40 I, 327b, 23–27). “Aus diesem allem ist abermal genugsam offenbar / was fur grewlichen unseglichen schaden das verfluchte Bapfstum in der Christenheit angericht hat / Denn also hat der Hellische Trache durch seinen schedlichen Roemischen stul geleret vnd gesagt / Man koenne vberwinden diese aller grewlichste vnd mechtigste Tyrannen (nemlich Suende / Tod / vnd den ewigen Fluch / die das gantze menschliche geschlecht dahin reissen vnd fressen) nicht allein durch die gerechtigkeit / so aus dem Gesetz koempt /sondern auch durch die gerechtigkeit vnser eigen werck / als da sind fasten Wal farte / Rosenkrentze /Cloestergeluebbe vn der gleiche.” (Aiijv–Aivr) = “Ex his satis liquet, quam horribiliter caeci et impii fuerint papistae, quod docuerunt istos atrocissimos et potentissimos Tyrannos (Peccatum, Mortem, Maledictionem) qui totum genus humanum exhauriunt, vincendos esse non iustitia legis divinae (Quae etiamsi iusta, bona, sancta sit, nihil potest quam maledictioni subiicere), Sed iustitia operum humanorum, qualia sunt Ieiunia, peregrinationes, Rosaria, Vota etc.” (WA 40 I, 441b, 34–442b, 14). “Derhalben auch niemand zweiffeln sol / das das Bastumb eine rechte Mordgrube der seelen / vnd gewissen / vnd des Teuffels eigen Reich vnd Keyserthumb sey.” (Aivr–Aivv) = “Ideoque Papatus est verissima carnificina conscientiarum et ipsissimum Diaboli regnum” (WA 40 I, 587b, 27–28). “Kein Mensch kans gleuben / welch ein grewel das Bapstum ist. Ein Christ mus auch nicht eins geringen geists sein / Der es erkennen sol. Jch spotte allein darumb mit meinem schwachen spotte / Das die / so jtzt leben / vnd nach vns kommen / wissen sollen / was ich vom Bapst / dem verfluchten Antichrist gehalten habe / Und wer ein Christ sein wil / sich fuer solchem grewel lasse vermanen.” (Aivv–Bir) = “Kein Mensch kans gleuben, welch ein grewel das Bapstum ist. Ein Christ, der mus auch nicht geringes geistes sein, der es sol erkennen. […] Jch spotte allein darumb mit meinem schwachen spotten, das die, so jtzt leben

148

Marta Quatrale

und nach uns komen, wissen sollen, was ich vom Bapst, dem verfluchten Antichrist gehalten habe, Und wer ein Christ sein wil, sich fuer solchem grewel lasse vermanen” (WA 45, 215, 17–25). “Nun sehen wir / das er (der Bapst) mit seine Roemischen Cardinalen nichts anders ist / denn ein verzweifelter Spitzbube / Gottes und Menschen Feind / der Christen Verstoerer / und des Satans leibhafftige wonunge. […] Jch mus hie eine Historia mit vnter bringen / daraus man mercken mag / was von den Heiligen Spitzbuben und Moerdern des Roemischen Stules zuhalten sey.” (Biv) = “Nu sehen wir, das er mit seinen Roemischen Cardineln nichts anders ist, denn ein verzweivelter Spitzbube, Gottes und Menschen feind, der Christenheit verstoerer, und des Satans leibhafftige wonung […]. JCh mus hie eine Historien mit unter bringen, daraus man mercken mag, was von den heiligen Spitzbuben und Moerdern des Roemischen Stuels zu halten” (WA 45, 218, 29–219,3). “Wiltu schier gleuben / das der Roemische stul / Bapst und Cardinel mit allen Teuffeln besessen sind / vnd jhr Spitzbuebisch / Rothwelsch / kein grund / ende / noch mas haben kan? Wiltu schier gleuben / das solche Boesewichter eitel Epicurer, Gottes und aller menschen feinde sein muessen?” (Bijr) = “WJltu schier gleuben, das der Roemische stuel, Bapst und Cardinal, mit allen Teufeln besessen sind, und jr spitzbuebisch Rotwelsch kein grund, ende, noch mas haben kan? Wiltu schier gleuben, das solche Boesewichter eitel Epicurer, Gottes und aller Menschen feinde sein muessen?” (WA 45, 224, 30–33).

Bibliography Primary Sources Buddeus, J.F. (1702–1704), Supplementum Epistolarum Martini Lutheri, Halle: Waisenhaus. Enders, E.L. (1884–1887), Dr. Martin Luthers sämmtliche Werke. Briefwechsel, Frankfurt am Main: Schriften-Niederlage des Evangel. Vereins. Förstermann, K.E. (1835), Urkundenbuch zu der Geschichte des Reichstags zu Augsburg in 1530, Halle: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Weisenhauses. Kawerau, G. (1884), Der Briefwechsel des Justus Jonas, Halle: Verlag Otto Hendel. Schippers, P. (1966), Bibliographiae reconditae, Amsterdam. Schütze, G. (1783ff), D. Martin Luthers bisher ungedruckte Briefe, Leipzig: Wappler. Strobel, G.T./Ranner, G.C. (1814), D. Mart. Lutheri Epistolae studio atque opera, Sumtu Ioh. Bern, Nürnberg: Geyeri. Walch, J.G. (1880–1910), Dr. Martin Luthers Sämmtliche schriften, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House. Wette, W.M.L. de (ed.) (1825–1828), Briefe, Sendschreiben und Bedenken, Berlin: Reimer.

Nikolaus von Amsdorf’s Reply to Johannes Pfeffinger

149

Secondary Literature Abraham, M. (2007), Evangelium und Kirchengestalt, Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. Hammer, W. (1967), Die Melanchthonforschung im Wandel der Jahrhunderte, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus. Hausdorff, U.G. (1741), Lebensbeschreibung Lazari Spenglers, in: U.G. Hausdorff, Lebens-Beschreibung Eines Christlichen Politici nehmlich Lazari Spenglers, Nürnberg: Schmidt. Kaufmann, T. (2003), Das Ende der Reformation. Magdeburgs ‘Herrgotts Kanzlei’ (1548– 1551/2), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Kaufmann, T. (2006), Konfession und Kultur, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Kawerau, G. (1884), Der Briefwechsel des Justus Jonas, Halle: Verlag Otto Hendel. Rückert, H. (1972), Luther und der Reichstag zu Augsburg, in: Rückert, H., Vorträge und Aufsätze zur historischen Theologie, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 108–136. Scheible, H./Mundhenk, C. (1977ff), Melanchthons Briefwechsel, Stuttgart: FrommannHolzboog. Scheible, H. (1997), Melanchthon. Eine Biographie, München: C.H. Beck. Schottenloher, K. (1920), Das Regensburger Buchgewerbe im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert mit Akten und Druckverzeichnis, Mainz: Verlag der Gutenberg-Gesellschaft. Schottenloher, K. (1920), Das Regensburger Buchgewerbe im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert mit Akten und Druckverzeichnis, Mainz: Verlag der Gutenberg-Gesellschaft.

Aurelio A. García

Bullinger’s Exhortation for a Non-Contentious Ministry: The Adhortatio ad Ministros Ecclesiarum, ad Mutuam Concordiam Constituendam of 15721

Heinrich Bullinger, head pastor of Zurich after Zwingli, was well aware of the dangers of church struggles. He not only had found himself in the position of picking up the pieces after the failure of Zwingli’s confrontational strategy against the Catholic Inner Cantons, which had led to Zurich’s defeat and the reformer’s untimely death, but he had found himself in the midst of many internal struggles of the evangelical movement, particularly against the Lutherans who found the Reformed subversive of church and state, no better than Anabaptists in their citizenship, and close to atheists in their understanding of the two nature Christology, and of the bodily presence of the Lord in the Holy Supper. Bullinger had had many and bitter struggles against those he called the ‘ubiquitarians’, a term of theological particularization, rather than of abuse, for the Zurich Antistes’ rhetoric always remained irenic and inoffensive.2 1 This writing of Bullinger’s is presented to the Polish leaders by the leaders of Zurich. It is interesting to note that in the prefatory letter there is a dedication to the Polish crown treasurer and other important dignataries, and finally to Josias Simler, a close collaborator of Bullinger. Simmler had translated several of Bullinger’s works and was himself a polymath and theologian, having written against several opposing theological positions, including that of the then called ubiquitarians. It is noteworthy that in his biography of Simmler, the author Johann Wilhelm Stucki, states that Simmler had translated from German this work of Bullinger, to whom it is also now dedicated. Therefore one can perhaps understand why the work is lacking in specifics about dates, situations or circumstances. 2 Martin Friedrich has already discussed Bullinger’s stance in the Eucharistic controversy. In his article this author reviews the traditional historiographical interpretation from the Lutheran as well as the Reformed side (Friedrich: 1997). According to him, Bullinger’s doctrine of the Supper was akin to Zwingli’s, yet different inasmuch as it was based on those texts which expressed a covenantal understanding. From 1530 Bucer was working towards a general Protestant union, but from the beginning was encumbered by the intransigency of Luther. Bullinger was upset with Bucer for agreeing with the Lutherans on his own. He expected Luther to tolerate the Swiss position, while the latter expected to bring the Swiss over. Bullinger wrote to Bucer in 1533 stressing Zurich acknowledged Luther as a brother. Then the general political situation made the Reformed and Lutherans in Württemberg come into agreement in the Stuttgarter Konkordie. In spite of a strategic distancing from Zwingli’s more radical state-

152

Aurelio A. García

Having grown tired and weary of so many debates (and differently from Bucer), Bullinger did not seek to concoct mediating formulas that would guarantee a strategic doctrinal agreement. Rather his route, consistent with the rest of his doctrine and ecumenical and pastoral endeavor, was to underscore the basic and universal church doctrines, especially those he understood to be necessary for a right comprehension and appropriation of salvation. So he gives us a list of doctrines which are derived from Scripture, which are in agreement with the doctrine of the ancient church and the ecumenical councils, and which encompass the essential insights of the sixteenth century Protestant Reformation: justification by faith alone, election (divine monergism in salvation), and sole reliance on Scripture as the source of doctrine.3 In the Adhortatio, Bullinger stresses the pastoral dangers and the scandal caused to the faithful, by the constant abusive debate and bitter disputation among evangelical theologians. The never-ending pamphlet war between Luments, it was Zwingli’s recognition of the Sacrament as a gift that could provide a bridge towards Bullinger’s description of the Sacrament as mysterium. The Swiss moved towards a joint confederate statement that emphasized the Body of Christ was in heaven, but in such a way that his power was present. The presence of the body, however, was understood to be limited to believers who appropriate the death on the cross as forgiveness of sin thought faith, for the Sacrament is only a sign and seal. These formulations included the statement, unacceptable for Luther, that grace is not (intrinsically) bound to the sacrament. Even as late as 1535 Bullinger was inclined to press for concord. However recent attacks against the Swiss by Luther stood in the way. Bullinger would not allow himself to be led to accept Bucer’s mediating formulas, for they seemed unclear to him. The situation led him to sharpen the stress on the role of faith in the sacrament. Bullinger was now inclined to attempt to contact Luther directly. The Swiss lay their hopes on the formulations of the Helvetica Prior. In 1536 the Swiss cantons moved to approach Luther directly. However the approaches were different: Luther expected the Swiss to agree to his positions; the Swiss only expected toleration from the Lutheran side. At this stage Bullinger thought enough had already been won. But soon Luther’s attacks against Zwingli’s doctrines started anew, and by 1539 further approach seemed hopeless. According to this author, Bullinger from the beginning thought that Bucer downplayed the objective differences, but still the Zurich Antistes saw a unity in spite of permanent differences as possible, and therefore believed no corrections to the Swiss understanding of the Supper were necessary. Friedrich believes perhaps Bullinger could be blamed for not pressing on; nevertheless, several of Bullinger’s insights have been crucial to modern ecumenical agreements. Friedrich’s discussion has stressed what has been called the first, or early, Abendmahlsstreit. Our text, however, is centered in a posterior stage of the conflict. Nonetheless, this discussion gives us some insight into the development of the controversy, and an understanding of how tired Bullinger must have been of such debates. It is to be pointed out, thought that Friedrich does not include in his discussion passages that reveal Bullinger’s general attitude to theological hair-splitting. Again, in these passages Bullinger strives to underline the Biblical formulations and to avoid philosophical terms and speculations. And he also stresses the need to obey the call for mutual tolerance and love in spite of differences. 3 See, in particular, Edward Dowey excellent summary of Bullinger’s work as theologian, which stresses how important it was for him to point out the doctrinal agreement of the Reformed with early Catholic doctrine. His main objection to Lutheran Sacramental theology had to do in no small measure with the implications it had for an orthodox Christology (Dowey: 2004).

Bullinger’s Exhortation for a Non-Contentious Ministry

153

therans and the Reformed was undoubtedly the greatest offense. For the errors of the Papacy were easy to see: they had added to Biblical doctrine in such a manner that the road to salvation was obscured, impeding the faithful from obtaining access to saving grace, security of salvation and tranquility of conscience: in this Bullinger was a faithful follower of Luther.4 The subversions of the Anabaptist were also patent: they turned the doctrine of grace back again into human works of piety, while disrupting the very bases of civilized Christian community. But the Lutherans were co-restorers of the Gospel and necessary allies in the struggle to purify the church. In the essential understanding of salvation they were in agreement with the Reformed. Though revering and recognizing Luther’s great contributions for the renewal of the church, Bullinger did not think the disagreements on Christology and on the Lord’s Supper were trite; rather the doctrines modified by Lutheran theologians constituted a serious breach with ancient understandings of the manner of the unity of the natures in Christ, and therefore these innovations impinged both on the unity of tradition and on the understanding of salvation. Bullinger thus did not hesitate to reaffirm the Reformed understanding; nevertheless, he sought to convince by rational explanation, rather than to dismiss by invective. His conviction held firm that if one kept close to the simple Biblical definitions of the essential doctrines, people could be led to a saving knowledge of Christ. Superfluous speculations were akin to the doctrines of the Scholastics which Luther himself had condemned. They were a total failure in terms of the main purpose of theological endeavor: to preach the Gospel. These detailed and contentious doctrinal speculations added nothing to salvation; to the contrary, they led to confusion among the laity, to scandal, and to the soiling of the reputation of Protestant preaching and churches. They tended to promote the arguments of Roman Catholicism in terms of their contention that apparent inner doctrinal harmony and unity testified to the veracity of their teachings and to the validity of their ecclesial structure. While the presentation in the Adhortatio does not differ from Bullinger’s essential approach to the organizing and presenting of Christian doctrine in other works, here the stress lays not so much in the correctness of Reformed doctrine, as in the

4 It is important to point out that an open attitude towards Luther was also something Zwingli initially had, as can be shown from a letter written to the Wittenberg reformer: “Hochgelehrter Luther, ganz gegen meinen Willen hast Du mich genötigt, die beiliegende zu schreiben, in der ich mich recht freimütig mit Dir auseinandersetze, ohne doch in Gezänk zu verfallen. Denn ich habe Dich immer hoch geachtet – meinen Vater könnte ich nicht höher halten … Ich werde auch meiner Verehrung kein Ende setzen, es wäre denn, Du fändest Deinerseits kein Ende in Deinem hartnäckigen Widerstand gegen die Wahrheit. Ich muß nämlich einmal in diesem Brief ganz offen mit Dir reden” (quoted in Locher: 1971). A good combination of reverence and defiance!

154

Aurelio A. García

danger of the scandal of doctrinal contention for the promotion of the Gospel, and especially for pastoral care. The main problem Bullinger addresses here is the attitude of ministers and theologians. Many doctors of our times, he states, excite serious controversies without any cause, while other ministers pervert wholesome doctrine, and then interpret it differently from what the thing itself supports. For this reason tranquil and peace loving men, who prefer to teach the amendment of life and to serve the edification of the church by teaching and work, try strenuously to make these conflicts abate, and if possible to eradicate them; even so they are dragged into these contentions even against their will. Those who promote these enmities and contentions, dragging along the lovers of peace into the fray, gravely sin against God. On the other hand, those who strongly and modestly oppose evil causes always seek to promote peace, rather than war and conflict, that is, whenever it is timely and fitting. This aggressive and hostile behavior is opposed to the example of the ancients, who sought to eradicate suspected errors by benign teaching and amicable conversation, acting fraternally. Whenever they found out an important formulation of suspicious dogma had been proposed, they received it and put down the controversy softly and without contradictions. On account of this attitude the rise of further contention war avoided. They did not sustain irreconcilable contentions and perpetual disagreements among themselves, nor did they act out of hatred and emulation, but rather out of pious zeal for wholesome doctrine. When someone did really err, and persevered stubbornly and obstinately in that error, they all did rebuke him publicly so that the laity may beware of such men, and avoid them. The ancients especially opposed at all times those who perverted wholesome doctrine for others, and attempted to start unnecessary controversies in the church. Yet those who professed in the true church of Christ did not contend among themselves easily, nor were they easily pushed into disagreements, being aware that their enemies – the philosophers, the priests of the idols, and other erudite pagans – would rejoice and celebrate. Indeed, they would rather struggle to maintain mutual agreement, and struggled to quickly dispose of the causes of dissent; thus they would combat jointly and with unanimous energy the pagan scholars outside the church. For on account of past contentions, unabated great calamities and miseries had invaded the church, as can be demonstrated in the Arian and Mohammedan histories, Bullinger concludes. He adds: One cause among others of contentions and debates, and whence they originate and grow, is when erudite men are not content with what already has been received and is taught simply from the Word of God, and which is sufficient unto the knowledge of true religion for living rightly from God’s will, and thus attain eternal life. But they rather direct all their lifetime, works and effort to this: that they may dig up and promote

Bullinger’s Exhortation for a Non-Contentious Ministry

155

something new, which up to now has not been seen or brought into the light. This which they have discovered by their own opinion, they then adorn with elegant words, and procure that it to be seen as a precious attainment. Furthermore, they convince themselves that whoever is content with what already has been used and rightly understood, and does not desire to buy into these new treasures, having no need for new inventions, must be stupid and incapable of understanding mysteries (Bullinger, 1571, 12a).

Thus the use of new and peculiar formulations was one of the preeminent causes of the rise of controversies. For many contentions and controversies arose among church ministers when someone trying to explain religious issues introduced their own idiosyncratic ways of expression, which then were taken up by others, even if they understood their use was uncomfortable and irrelevant to the churches. When someone else would not deem proper to use these new phrases, then the proponents could only view them as enemies, and called them seducers and other such words. They did so, even if their opponents were stating the same thing with regard to the sum of religion, using other proper, suitable and already well-defined terms, useful to their churches, which the former had stated in their newer terms (Bullinger, 1572, 9b). These people were so keen on contending that they would not allow themselves to be satisfied by any explanation, unless everything they pleased were received. And Bullinger adds that truly among the ancients this sentence was always received and held for true: that good, prudent, and faithful people should not contend about words, where they were in agreement in the concept and the matter at hand itself. And equally it was understood, that these contumacious men brought upon themselves a grave sentence and damnation of God, when they provoked unnecessary conflicts in the church. Speaking of this paradigmatic past of the church, Bullinger adds, that now and then also someone would misuse obscure and ambiguous words, so that when it became necessary to explain a controversy regarding a given doctrine, which could be explained and solved by either part [using traditional language], for that very reason the dispute was not put to rest, but rather kept on going. Truly, in controversial questions simple and clear words were to be used, which could express a single and true statement; this made impossible the holding of two contrary interpretations. For this reason in the practice of the Ancient church, when the establishment of a firm agreement was sought, slippery and ambiguous words were to be excluded. When referring to these approaches to dissent in the ancient churches, Bullinger is not primarily thinking of the post-apostolic church, but rather is citing from the Biblical canon. Indeed, from the Pauline texts he claims the mixing in of philosophy and sacred theology is responsible for dissent and controversies among ministers (Bullinger, 1572, 10a). The Adhortatio is not strictly exceptional among Bullinger’s works in responding to doctrinal polemics with a call to a pastoral attitude. If the struggle

156

Aurelio A. García

with Lutherans about the sacraments, called by some the Zweite Abendmahlsstreit,5 might be seen as the triggering event for Bullinger’s emotional exhaustion with theological controversy, we could also point out that the Zurich Antistes’ posture in the Adhortatio is already announced in his Answer to Johannes Brentius’ Testament: Invoking God’s Grace we have always to this day treated the statements of Sacred Scripture reverently, and attempted to enounce and interpret them likewise, certainly not perverting and corrupting them with false interpretations. For hitherto we have always judged this to be the true and legitimate interpretation of Scripture: where nothing is proposed which may contradict God Omnipotent’s glory, but rather puts forth what vindicates it; where nothing is given opposing true faith and the articles of the Apostolic Symbol, nor anything opposing the love of God and neighbor. But [we judge Scripture to be truly interpreted] where the sense of Scripture can be gathered from Scripture itself, rather than brought in from human emotions, and which also fits the properties of the language in question, the circumstances and that which comes before or after [i. e., the context], and which furthermore takes into account other related things, and when it is compared with other scriptural passages, which can be seen [either] to differ or to speak more clearly about the same matter. The ancient and orthodox Fathers did not teach differently [from us] about the interpretation of Scripture, [a fact] which is clear from their books and especially from Augustine’s On Christian Doctrine.6

5 Long before this historiographical of a Zweite Abendmahlsstreit had been coined a recrudescence of the controversy had been identified about the year 1556. Lavater in his history of the controversy wrote: “Postquam igitur ad hunc modum, Vestphali & Timanni scriptis, controversia sacramentaria recruduit: multi libri, orationes, dialogi, confessiones, epistolae, theses, praefationes, de hac causa, ab utriusque partis doctis pariter & indoctis, typis evulgabantur, presque maiore impetus sursum & deorsum agitate fuit, quam antea unquam.” (Lavater, 1563). The second stage of the conflict is usually nowadays dated from 1551, when the Consensus Tigurinus was published. Not everyone is agreed the conflict should be divided in these stages. Stumpf also had been an early writer on this theme. (Weisz: 1930). There is evidence his work is substantially dependent on a collection of documents by Bullinger himself (Henrich: 1993). 6 “Nos hactenus sacrae scripturae sententias Semper religiose tractavimus invocata Dei gratia, atque illas declarare & interpretari studuimus, non autem falsis interpretionibus pervertere & corrupere. Nam hactenus Semper iudicavimus hanc ese varam & legitimam scripturarum interpretationem, ubi nihil profertur contrarium gloriae omnipontentis Dei, ei inquam loriae quam sibi vendicat, nihil ítem pugnans verae fidei, & articulis Symboli Apostolici, nihil denique adversum charitati Dei & proximi: atque ubi sensus ex ipsa scriptura sumitur, non ex humano affectu infertur: proprietas linguae cuiusque servatur: occasiones & ea quae antecedunt & consequuntur, caeteraque adiuncta diligenter expenduntur: & sensus etiam sevatur aliorum scripturae testimonium, quae vel dissentire videntur, vel etiam clarius de eadem re loquuntur. Neque aliter veteres & orthodoxi Patres de scripturarum interpretatione docuerunt: id quod ex libris eorum constat, & praesertim D. Augustini de Doctrina Christiana” (Bullinger, 1572, 4).

Bullinger’s Exhortation for a Non-Contentious Ministry

157

Thus we can see that Bullinger remains close to the initial reformatory stress on Scripture, and on its simplicity and perspicuity. For Bullinger Scripture needs no false props. If allowed to speak, it will show itself to be sufficient for conviction of sin and salvation through faith in Christ. He too believed in the viva vox Evangelii and in its power to convict and convince. This same rhetorical strategy, used by Bullinger in the book written a year earlier against Johannes Brentius, had also been employed in the Antistes’ Apology,7 written in the 1550s against Luther and his followers. There Bullinger had shown horror at the vehemence of the accusations, and had stated that in debates we must submit to Biblical injunctions against intolerance, abuse and lack of love towards the neighbor. The Antistes further pointed out it was inconsistent with the dignity of the pastoral ministry as well as with Christian charity to indulge in this kind of invective. In the Apology he had also held forth the agreement between Geneva and Zurich (the Consensus Tigurinus) and mentioned how Calvin and others, in interpreting the Augsburg Confession, made use of charity and of the most tolerant construal of meaning, adding: “Let us not give occasion for the Ministry to be despised, but let us act so that in all things we are esteemed as ministers of God: in much patience, in affliction, in necessities, in anxieties, in plagues, in incarcerations, in tears, in the midst of seditions, in travails, in overnight watches, in fasts, in purity, in knowledge, in humbleness …” and so forth, citing 2 Cor 2. Bullinger affirms he also desires his opponents, held in great esteem in their own countries, to be mindful of the same duties. And adds that in truth, it seems that the subject is such that the main points should be exposed and heard clearly, and that the things to which we respond in few words should be understandable to anyone. The Lord Jesus grants grace for the attainment of these things.8 In his response to Brentius’ Testament and in refuting the accusation of his opponents Bullinger states that: Rather on the contrary, we have taught and written, always from the beginning until now, openly and constantly, that the most Holy Supper of our Lord Jesus Christ is rendered obscure and entangled by human additions and by plots abounding in disputations, as well as by absurd and pugnacious expressions; thus too it is made a rude,

7 “Apologetica expositio, qua ostenditur tigurinae ecclesiae ministros nullum sequi dogma haereticum in Coena domini, libellis quorumdam acerbis opposita, & ad omnes synceram veritatem & sactam pacem amantes Christi fideles placid scripta, per HENRICHUM BULLINGERUM, Tigurinae ecclesiae ministrum. Tiguri apud andream Gesnerum F. et Iacobum Gesnerum fratres.” 8 “Car a la verité, il semble bien que la matiere est telle, que les principaus poincts d’icelle se doivent clairement exposer & entendre, & que les choses ausquelles nous respondons en peu de paroles se puissent congnoistre d’un chacun. Le Seigneur Iesus nous doint gras de parfaire ces choses” (p. 8) (this is the apologetica exposition in French).

158

Aurelio A. García

bothersome and contentious thing to the church; in spite of [the sacrament] having been instituted by the Lord so that it be celebrated in love and unity, with great joy in the Holy Spirit, in commemoration of the most cruel death which He underwent, and with thanksgivings for our most assured redemption, as well as in pledge of being one body.9

Thus we can see that Bullinger’s attitude towards theological dispute was not simply a reaction born of exhaustion and despair, but rather represents his existential attitude towards strife in the church, and his concern for the pastoral care of the flock.10 He also admires how the Fathers of the Church dealt with disputes, striving by all means to avoid contention and to stand united for the well-being of the flock. Indeed, he states, men who in their time rather dealt in philosophy than in sacred theology and who expressed themselves in philosophical terms rather than in scriptural phrases, also thought the Bible to be barbaric, foreign and rude; for this reason they abandoned the properties of sacred letters, and attempted to twist11 [the texts] to fit their own terms; they thus not only caused the saving and proper sense of Scripture to perish, but also opened the door to many contentions and disputations. Bullinger is thinking particularly of Aristotelic terms such as species, differences, relations, accidents, qualities, quantities, causes, and such “trash.” Soon not only Tertullian will be quoted, but also the Gospel of John: “These things are written so that you believe Jesus is Christ the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.” Thus wordiness and ostentation should not tarnish the clarity and simplicity of Scripture, for Scripture’s capacity to provide saving knowledge of Christ, that is, the Gospel, consists in precisely this perspicuity:

9 “Porro nos e contrario ab initio hactenus semper constanter aperteque docuimus & scripsimus, & nunc quoque docemos atque scribimus, Coenam sacrosanctam domini nostri Iesu Christi, additionibus humanis, & concertationum plenis disputationibus, & absurdis atque pugnantibus locutionibus, obscurari & quasi intricari, & ita factam ese ecclesiae insuavem, molestam & litigiosam, eum tamen ita instituta sit a domino, ut in charitate & unitate ac cum summa laetitia in spiritu sancto, celebretur in commemorationem mortis acerbissimae quam pertulit, & gratiarum actionem pro certissima nostra redemption, & in obligationem unius corporis, &c.” (testam. Brentii, p. 5). It is important to point out that fellowship in Christ has been understood to be the main theme of Bullinger’s theology. As such, it is closely related to the Supper. In Peter Opitz’s view the Supper represents the communion of the faithful that constitutes them as the Body of Christ. In this way we can better understand the scandal a bitter dispute on the Lord’s Supper represented for Bullinger (Opitz: 2004). 10 It is not irrelevant to point out this fact has been noted in relation to Bullinger’s understanding of the prophetic role: “From the Decades onward, however, a different tone was evident in Bullinger’s writings, which stressed the shared role of the ministers in the church in the pursuit of one goal, the building of church unity through the edification of the community” (Bollinger: 2004). 11 Inflingere connatur.

Bullinger’s Exhortation for a Non-Contentious Ministry

159

For whoever ministers are content with the simplicity of doctrine and who seek faith in the sole Word of God, and who do not indulge their curiosity, and who flee the infinite and hateful over-investigation, nor who mix–in extraneous things in things and words, and who are not led by garrulity, hatred, envy, or the desire to be victorious and to show off; who understand divine things without further excessive investigations, and are of a quiet and tranquil spirit, these can teach [church doctrine] with some success. Thus conflicts and many controversies which offend men are removed, from which we can get rid in no other way (13a).

Then Bullinger defines what it means to be a true servant of God: These ministers of the church act correctly who remain content with the simplicity of Scripture in order to teach the faith to those under their care, and who do not entangle themselves in bitter disputations. Rather they exhort their hearers to acknowledge their sinful nature, to deplore their misery before God, imploring His grace, so that they may be regenerated by God by means of His Spirit, and who furthermore engage in every good work by faith; those who together with the Spirit struggle against the flesh unto the end. Thus doctrine is rendered fruitful and useful to hearers, for disputations truly yield nothing but doubts and conflicts (Bullinger, 1575, 15b).

In a statement that would provoke the loud assent of 21st century parishioners around the earth, Bullinger states: Pious and faithful people everywhere are complaining about the ministers of the church – since at the ending of this age the sad corruption of this world is such that miseries, calamities and contentions reign everywhere – that the duty of church ministers should be, as fathers and church leaders and doctors, to act as messengers of peace in God’s house, so that they may teach men rightly and simply, instruct and confirm them in the faith, rebuke sins and errors, exhort to every good, console the afflicted, and promote peace, love and concord, and furthermore repentance from sins and urge the amendment of life, and nevertheless for long they have done otherwise. And even thus they give themselves quarrels and contentiousness as a mode of teaching, and among themselves they fight with hostility, so that involved in private affairs and fights, they expend nothing towards dignity, which might be advisable for the public cause. Rather in their place they put forth their contentious and hostile struggles about sacred things and propose them in the house of God before the whole church (Bullinger, 1572, 6a).

In the exhortation, Bullinger basically retakes Luther’s condemnation of scholastic theology to argue back to the simplicity of Scripture. Only a few doctrines are essential: the doctrines of sin, justification, good works, the two natures of Christ, the Trinity the incarnation, as well as the bodily presence of Christ in glory at the right hand of the Father, which immediately brings the theme of the denial of ubiquitarian doctrine in the sacrament of the Eucharist. Bullinger relies on Biblical passages and on some patristic quotations and examples, mainly those that underscore the clarity and simplicity of Biblical doctrine, and thus condemn

160

Aurelio A. García

theological innovation. Thus in his discussion the Antistes also recapitulates briefly the doctrines essential to salvation. Bullinger’s approach is also pastoral: pastors and church officers should dedicate themselves to preaching the Gospel and shepherding the flock; contentious fights about doctrine have their origin in human cupidity.12 The sole ground for peace and unity is the Gospel as preached simply and clearly in Scripture. We could state that his motto and inspiration lies in Paul’s words: “Then, when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with elegance of speech or erudition to announce to you the testimony of God. I did not offer among you anything to be known except Jesus Christ and Him crucified.” Thus he states: The summary of Christ’s preaching was to announce the Kingdom of God. The main heads of this preaching are: first, that God has prepared His kingdom for us, which he offers and is ready to share, as well as to receive us in it. Second, in order to receive and seek to obtain it, we must acknowledge our corrupted nature and sins. Third, before anything it is necessary to believe the Gospel which is announced to us: that God is a most clement Father who out of sheer grace gave us his only-begotten Son to be our Savior; that He became human and was crucified on account of our sin, and that furthermore He arose from among the dead for the sake of our justification; that this One is the sole and unique true Mediator by whom we are reconciled to God, and receive the remission of sins and life eternal (Bullinger, 1572, 31b).

12 Compare with Bullinger’s treatment in a more formal and less polemical context: the Second Helvetic Confession. There these pastoral duties are also stressed; he addresses only briefly the matter of doctrinal wrangling: “The duties of ministers are various; yet for the most part they are restricted to two, in which all the rest are comprehended: to the teaching of the Gospel of Christ, and to the proper administration of the sacraments. For it is the duty of the ministers to gather together an assembly for worship in which to expound God’s Word and to apply the whole doctrine to the care and use of the Church, so that what is taught may benefit the hearers and edify the faithful. It falls to ministers, I say, to teach the ignorant, and to exhort; and to urge the idlers and lingerers to make progress in the way of the Lord. Moreover, they are to comfort and to strengthen the fainthearted, and to arm them against the manifold temptations of Satan; to rebuke offenders; to recall the erring into the way; to raise the fallen; to convince the gainsayers to drive the wolf away from the sheepfold of the Lord; to rebuke wickedness and wicked men wisely and severely; not to wink at nor to pass over great wickedness. And, besides, they are to administer the sacraments, and to commend the right use of them, and to prepare all men by wholesome doctrine to receive them; to preserve the faithful in a holy unity; and to check schisms; to catechize the unlearned, to commend the needs of the poor to the Church, to visit, instruct, and keep in the way of life the sick and those afflicted with various temptations. In addition, they are to attend to public prayers or supplications in times of need, together with common fasting, that is, a holy abstinence; and as diligently as possible to see to everything that pertains to the tranquility, peace and welfare of the churches. But in order that the minister may perform all these things better and more easily, it is especially required of him that he fear God, be constant in prayer, attend to spiritual reading, and in all things and at all times be watchful, and by a purity of life to let his light to shine before all men.”

Bullinger’s Exhortation for a Non-Contentious Ministry

161

Bullinger is quite frank and clear, even rude, in stating his conclusion: “Therefore the ministers of the church have enough business to attend to, so that it is not necessary for them to carry on these contentious disputes, and have no need to go on proposing questions to the church which are sterile and even full of offences and conflicts.”13 The Antistes concludes that the minister is established in God’s church in order to teach; let him therefore teach the Word of God. And in a further expression that sounds so contemporary, he adds, for those who come into the church do not come to hear the opinions and sentiments of the ministers, but in order to hear the Word of God. Therefore it is necessary that they preach God’s Word purely and faithfully, so that hearers may amend their lives and be consoled.14 This appeal also implies the response of state leaders and magistrates: Furthermore all pious and Christian princes and magistrates, on account of the divine office entrusted to them, should take care of this matter, and by all efforts and counsels should collaborate so that the ministers of the churches dispatch and cease to quarrel and fight with his brothers and fellow servants, so that they may preach repentance and emendation of life and true faith in Christ fruitfully and with great moderation to the churches committed to them (37b–38a).15

Towards the end of his discourse, Bullinger summarizes his appeal, stating: I encourage all ministers of Jesus Christ and of His church, to put an end to and leave behind their controversies, and to join each other in true concord and charity, to mutually forgive their errors and faults, to avoid exotic words and phrases, and to promote the simple doctrine to which they agree honestly, to lead the church of Christ into unity, and to endeavor to promote with faithfulness and great effort true concord in it, and that they especially pray to God for His grace and Spirit, so that they may so do promptly and eagerly.16 13 “Satis igutur negotij quod agant habent eccesiae ministri, ut non opus sit ipsos contentiosum funem ducere, & non necessarias atque infrugiferas imo offensioum & rixuarum plenas quaestiones ecclesijs proponere” (33b). 14 “Minister in Dei ecclesia in hoc ut doceat es institutus, doceat igitur verbum Dei: & qui in ecclesiam conveniunt, non veniunt ut ministri opiniones & affectus audiant, sed ut audiant verbum Dei. Igitur verum Dei verbum pure & fideliter, ad emedationem & consolationem audietium preadicandum est” (34b). 15 “Praetera omnes pij & Christiani principes & magistratus, pro ratione officij divintus sibi comissi, diligentes huic rei attendere debent, & omni ope atque consilio iuvare, ut ecclesiarum ministry inutilibus his & molestis contentionibus valedicant, & cessent iurgari & certare cum fratribus & conservis suis,, & ut ecclesijs suae fidei commissis, fructuose cum summa moderatione & gravitate praedicent resipiscentiam sive emendationem vitae, & veram in Christum fidem.” 16 “…hortor omnes Jesu Christi & eccesiae eius ministros, ut suas controversias finiant & abijiant, & vera concordia & charitate iter se mutuo coniungatur, errores & lapsus sibi invicem condonent, peregrinas res verba & phrases vitent, simplicem solidam & sibi con-

162

Aurelio A. García

He further adds that one is to fear that God may chastise us for such struggles as Eusebius states of the early church under Diocletian and Maximilian. Finally we can state that Bullinger is very conscious of the technological changes of the age, and of their impact on the development of the Gospel. It is these inventions that empower and magnify the evil effects of superfluous controversy. Thus he adds that it is especially important to prevent the misuse of the art of printing (a great and most useful gift of God given to these latter times), for the promotion and prolongation of contentions and disagreements.17 Bullinger finalizes his dissertation with a brief and beautiful prayer to Christ that He may lead the ministers to spontaneously abandon contentions and dedicate themselves to the faithful shepherding of the flock and to leading them unto salvation, for Christ will come back shortly. In conclusion, it is clear that Heinrich Bullinger’s attitude towards theological controversy is different from that of Martin Bucer or that of John Calvin. He is not willing to go to whatever extreme in order to attain written agreement as Bucer was. He was not as bitter and vindictive in controversy as Calvin could be, perhaps more out of insecurity than out of spite. Bullinger was not willing to compromise principle, and he was no relativist: he believed in one truth, given by God in revelation in plain and simple words, and called the good news. Salvation is not an intellectual conundrum, but communion with the triune God and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Ministers are called to be pastors to the flock; selfserving theological one-upmanship does not benefit the church, and is against God’s will expressed in Scripture. In all likelihood Bullinger was aware that the situation in Europe had changed. Doctrinal inflexibility and theological authoritarianism would not do in order to convince a reading public that was still keenly interested in the salvation of their souls. Bullinger sought a rhetorical strategy by which the church was edified and not scandalized, and through which Zurich’s theological perspective could be promoted successfully, especially in the aftermath of the conversionist failure military aggression had shown itself to be in the Kappel defeat.

sentienem doctrinam proponant, ecclesiam Christo in unitate adducant, veramque concordiam in illa conservare summo studio & fide enitatantur, praecipue vero serio a Deo precentur gratiam & spiritum, ut haec prompte & libenter animo facere posint.” 17 “Peculiariter autem cavendum est, ne arte typographica, quod ingens & utilissimum donum a Deo postremis his temporibus datu est, aliqui abutantur ad alendas & prorogandas contentiones atque dissidia” (38b).

Bullinger’s Exhortation for a Non-Contentious Ministry

163

Bibliography Primary Sources Bullinger, Heinrich (1572), Adhortatio ad ministros ecclesiarum, ad mutuam concordiam constituendam, Zurich.

Secondary Literature Bollinger, Daniel (2004), Bullinger on Church Authority. The transformation of the Prophetic Role in Christian Ministry, in: B. Gordon/E. Campi, Architect of Reformation. An Introduction to Heinrich Bullinger, 1504–1575, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 159–177. Dowey, Edward (2004), Heinrich Bullinger as Theologian: Thematic, Comprehensive, and Schematic, in B. Gordon, & E. Campi, Architect of Reformation. An Introduction to Heinrich Bullinger, 1504–1575, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 17–65. Friedrich, Martin (1997), Heinrich Bullinger und die Wittenberger Koncordie. Ein Ökumeniker im Streit um das Abendmahl, Zwing. 24, 59–79. Henrich, Rainer (1993), Zu den Anfängen der Geschichtsschreibung über den Abendmahlsstreit, Zwing. 20, 11–51. Lavater, Ludwig (1563), Historia de origine et progressu controversiae sacramentariae de Coena Domini ab anno nativitatis Christi 1524 usque ad annum 1563 deducta, Zurich: Christophorus Froschuerus. Locher, Gottfried Wilhelm (1971), Die theologische und politische Bedeutung des Abendmahlsstreites im Licht von Zwinglis Briefen, Zwing. 8, 281–304. Opitz, Peter (2004), Eine Theologie der Gemeinschaft im Zeitalter der Glaubensspaltung, Zwing. 31, 199–214. Weisz, Leo (1930), Johann Stumpfs Geschichte des Abendmahlstreites, Zwing. 5, 193–221.

Jeannette Kreijkes1

Is a Special Faith the Same as Saving Faith? Calvin’s Appropriation of Chrysostom’s Understanding of a Faith of Miracles

1.

Introduction

From the second half of the sixteenth century onwards, four kinds of faith have been distinguished. In the Protestant tradition, genuine faith has often been mentioned in one breath with three forms of false faith. Historical, temporary, and miraculous faith have been considered untrue, because they lack justifying power. Focusing on the development of four kinds of faith, this paper pays special attention to miraculous faith. John Calvin argues that by the word ‘faith’ in 1 Cor 12:9 and 13:2, a ‘special faith’ is meant. He suggests that this special faith, to a great extent, corresponds to what fourth-century Greek church father John Chrysostom calls a “faith of miracles”. To gain greater insight into Calvin’s concept of a special faith, this paper analyses in what respects Calvin’s and Chrysostom’s interpretations coincide and differ, as well as the consequences of Calvin’s reception of Chrysostom’s faith of miracles. This paper successively aims to (1) focus on Calvin’s and Chrysostom’s understandings of the faith in 1 Cor 12:9 and 13:2, (2) analyse Calvin’s appropriation of Chrysostom’s faith of miracles, (3) compare Calvin’s and Chrysostom’s interpretations of a faith of miracles to Luther’s explanation of this faith, and (4) relate these findings to the distinction between four types of faith.

1 The ongoing PhD research, on which this paper is based, has received funding from The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO, Doctoral Grant for Teachers, grant agreement number 023.004.106).

166

2.

Jeannette Kreijkes

Calvin’s and Chrysostom’s Understandings of the Faith in 1 Cor 12:9 and 13:2

The two biblical passages2 in which Calvin sees a special faith and on which this paper focuses are 1 Cor 12:9 and 1 Cor 13:2. 1 Cor 12:8ff says: To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues.

1 Cor 13:2 has: If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

Calvin equates “faith” in 1 Cor 12:9 with “faith that can move mountains” in 1 Cor 13:2. For Calvin, the distinct character of this faith is evident from the clause “that can move mountains,” by which Paul restricted this faith to miracles. Because “it does not lay hold of Christ in His wholeness, but only of His power in effecting miracles”, this faith may sometimes exist in someone who lacks the Spirit of sanctification, like Judas. Calvin mentions Chrysostom, who describes as a faith of miracles (signorum) what Calvin terms a special faith (fides particularis). Chrysostom contrasts this faith to a faith of doctrines (dogmatum). Asserting that Chrysostom understands this faith paulo aliter (in a somewhat different manner), Calvin implies that Chrysostom’s explanation is essentially comparable to his own (CO 49, 500 [Comm. I Cor 12:9]; CO 49, 509 [Comm. I Cor 13:2]; trans. Calvin: 1960/1996, 262; 275). Is this correct? Indeed, Chrysostom differentiates between a faith of doctrines (πίστις τῶν δογμάτων) and a faith of miracles (πίστις τῶν σημείων), of which the faith of miracles is superior. Chrysostom mentions Christ Himself, who said, “If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move” (Matt 17:20). The fact that even the “least degree of faith” is sufficient to enable people to move mountains shows how valuable this faith is. Furthermore, the apostles requested more faith (Luke 17:5) because they desired to perform miracles. Contrasting love to this faith, the greatest gift of all, Paul underscored, in 1 Cor 13:2, the crucial importance of love (PG 61, 245; 268f [In 1 Cor. hom. 29.3; 32.3f]; trans. NPNF 1, vol. 12, 171f; 189; cf. Walchenbach: 2010, 98f).

2 All Biblical citations are taken from the New International Version (2011).

Is a Special Faith the Same as Saving Faith?

167

Whereas Calvin observes a restriction to miracles in Paul’s description of this faith, Chrysostom notices an expansion: it enables believers to move even mountains! Thus, there is significant divergence between Calvin’s and Chrysostom’s understandings of the faith concerned. What brought Calvin to claim a resemblance?

3.

Analysis of Calvin’s Appropriation of Chrysostom’s Faith of Miracles

In his dissertation on Calvin’s reception of Chrysostom’s exegesis of 1 Corinthians, Walchenbach states that Calvin’s concern for “clear brevity” (perspicua brevitas) colours Calvin’s references to Chrysostom. Avoiding long excurses in his commentaries, Calvin mentions the views of other exegetes as briefly as possible and often partially. These simplifications are not mistakes or hasty conclusions, but show “disciplined restraint.”3 Here, Calvin limits himself to just two words, paulo aliter, as Walchenbach argues (2010, 134–142, 156f). However, Walchenbach’s analysis raises some doubts. For example, Calvin would have saved words and effort if he had omitted Chrysostom. Alternatively, just by dropping the word paulo, Calvin would have represented Chrysostom’s interpretation not only more briefly, but also more accurately. Additionally, Walchenbach’s view that an explanation of the conflicting interpretations would be a digression, could be challenged. As Calvin considered justification by faith of primary importance for religion (OS, vol. 4, 182 [Institutes, 3.11.1]), it is rather unlikely that he found the character of this faith, justifying or not, a minor issue. Finally, Calvin’s explicit references to Chrysostom throughout his commentary on 1 Corinthians are generally correct. If Calvin’s methodological principle of brevity easily leads to errors, there would be more instances of inaccuracy than the approximately three examples out of 26 references. Thus, Walchenbach’s explanation does not suffice. What, then, has created Calvin’s impression of a slight disagreement? He has probably also considered Chrysostom’s exegesis of other passages. A clear example of a faith of miracles more in line with Calvin’s view is Chrysostom’s description of the faith of the masses, in John 2:23f, saying: Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Festival, many people saw the signs he [Jesus] was performing and believed in his name. But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all people. 3 See also CO 10, 402–406 [Epistola 191]; CO 31, 33–36 [Commentarii in Librum Psalmorum, Pars Prior]; OS, vol. 3, 5ff [Epistola ad Lectorem].

168

Jeannette Kreijkes

According to Chrysostom: The grosser sort the miracles [σημεῖα] attracted, but the better reasoners His prophecies [προφητεῖαι] and doctrines [διδασκαλίαι]; and so they who were taken by His teaching were more steadfast than those attracted by His miracles (PG 59, 143 [In Ioh. hom. 24.1]; trans. NPNF 1, vol. 14, 82).

They are like the seed that was superficially rooted and quickly perished. Faith based on miracles is inferior to that on teaching. Those who came to Christ because of His miracles held on the truth for a little while and again fell off from it. Because they were not real disciples, Jesus did not entrust himself to them (PG 59, 143 [In Ioh. hom. 24.1]; trans. NPNF 1, vol. 14, 82f; cf. Pitkin: 1999b, 873f). Was Calvin already acquainted with Chrysostom’s exegesis of these verses when he wrote his 1545 commentary on 1 Corinthians? This is difficult to determine. Commenting on John 2:23ff, Calvin does not explicitly mention Chrysostom (COR 2, vol. 11.1, 79–82).4 Yet, this does not necessarily imply that Calvin did not yet know Chrysostom’s explanation of these verses, either through a primary or an intermediary source. Thomas Aquinas, for example, mentions it: According to Chrysostom, the reason is that they did believe in him, but imperfectly, because they were not yet able to attain to the profound mysteries of Christ, and so Jesus did not trust himself to them, i.e., he did not yet reveal his secret mysteries to them (Aquinas: 2010, 160; cf. Pitkin: 1999b, 873).

The imperfection Aquinas notices in Chrysostom’s concept of a faith of miracles roughly corresponds to the incompleteness and inferiority of Calvin’s special faith. Particularly in reply to Aquinas, Calvin stresses the permanent and salvific character of faith.5 Against the background of mediaeval distinctions between several kinds of faith, such as formed and unformed faith, and acquired, historical, and demons’ faith, Calvin has developed his concept of one, genuine faith. 1 Cor 13:2 was used as a proof text by those who argued that formed faith was saving because of the presence of love in the will that keeps faith active. Faith becomes inactive and is no longer salvific when mortal sin devastates charity (OS, vol. 4, 18f [Institutes, 3.2.9]; Raith II: 2014, 94; cf. Pitkin: 2009, 291). Opposing the scholastic distinctions derived from the diversity of passages in Scripture about faith, Calvin intends to reserve the term faith for saving faith only and provides “a right definition” of it in his 1539 Institutes (Pitkin: 2009, 291). It is the

4 Calvin mentions Chrysostom ten times throughout his 1553 commentary on John. 5 Although Thomas Aquinas considered faith permanent, he believed that it can become nonsalvific. See Raith II: 2014, 94f.

Is a Special Faith the Same as Saving Faith?

169

firm and certain knowledge of God’s benevolence toward us, founded upon the truth of the freely given promise in Christ, both revealed to our minds and sealed upon our hearts through the Holy Spirit (OS, vol. 4, 16 [Institutes, 3.2.7]; trans. Calvin: 1998, 17).

As “faith rests upon the knowledge of Christ”, it always results in sanctification and devotion (OS, vol. 4, 18 [Institutes, 3.2.8]; trans. Calvin: 1960/1998, 18). However, a discrepancy raises with the faith in 1 Cor 12:9 and 13:2, which is nothing without love and edification of the church. As the medieval distinctions do not suffice, Calvin often takes refuge in suggesting that, in passages conflicting with his definition, the word ‘faith’ is used improperly (Pitkin: 2009, 291).6 Thus, Calvin argues, in his 1536 Institutes, that Paul, in 1 Cor 12:9 and 13:2: uses the terms ‘powers’ and ‘faith’ for the same thing, that is, for the ability to work miracles. This power or faith, therefore, is a special gift of God, which any impious man can brag about and abuse […]. No wonder, then, if it be separated from love! (OS, vol. 4, 19 [Institutes, 3.2.9]; trans. Calvin: 1998, 19).

Calvin implies, but does not state directly, that Paul actually meant ‘powers’ instead of ‘faith’. Remarkably, in light of his reluctance to the mediaeval distinctions, Calvin accuses, in his 1539 Institutes, those who use 1 Cor 13:2 as a proof text for “formed” and “unformed” faith, of overlooking the diverse meanings (πολύσημον) of faith. They read it everywhere in the same sense (OS, vol. 4, 19 [Institutes, 3.2.9]; trans. Calvin: 1998, 19; cf. Pitkin: 1999a: 59f, 199, n. 103).7 Conversely, for the purpose of instruction, Calvin enumerates the following four meanings (significationes) or forms (formae) of faith in Scripture: (1) The pure doctrine, (2) Faith concerning a specific object in a particular circumstance, (3) The gift of performing miracles, which can exist in unregenerate, and (4) Teaching that establishes people in faith (OS, vol. 4, 19; 23f [Institutes, 3.2.9]).8 Chrysostom’s faith of doctrines roughly corresponds to Calvin’s first meaning of faith; his faith of miracles to Calvin’s third option. Therefore, Calvin’s claim of

6 See also OS, vol. 4, 19 [Institutes, 3.2.9]: “Talibus quidem fidei testimonium tribuitur, sed per κατάχρησιν”.; trans. Calvin: 1998, vol. 3, 20: “To such persons an ascription of faith is made, but by misapplication.” 7 See also CO 49, 509 (Comm. 1 Cor 13:2). 8 Nevertheless, Calvin states in OS, vol. 4, 19 [Institutes, 3.2.9], “Quanquam vero plures esse fidei formas, docendi causa concedimus, dum volumus ostendere qualis sit in impiis Dei notitia: unicam tamen piorum fidem, ut Scriptura docet, agnoscimus et praedicamus.”; trans. Calvin: 1998, vol. 3, 19: “Although we concede, for the purpose of instruction, that there are divers forms of faith. But, while we wish to show what kind of knowledge of God can exist among the impious – we nevertheless recognize and proclaim that there is only one kind of faith among the pious – as Scripture teaches.”

170

Jeannette Kreijkes

a resemblance between his and Chrysostom’s distinctions of faith could have been a matter of association. According to Calvin’s explanation of 1 Cor 12:9, the Holy Spirit gives faith that does not necessarily justify. Since He does not give life to the seed in the hearts of the reprobate as to that in the elect, the Holy Spirit must not be considered false, Calvin argues in his Institutes. The reprobate themselves are responsible for not being saved. They do not examine their hearts as cautiously as they should do to avoid confusing the confidence of the flesh with assurance of faith, like the believers Christ would not entrust himself to in John 2:24f (OS, vol. 4, 19–23 [Institutes, 3.2.10ff]; trans. Calvin: 1998, 20–24).9 Chrysostom’s exegesis of this passage agrees with Calvin’s interpretation that the same persuasion of God’s fatherly love is not as deeply rooted in the reprobate as in the elect. Calvin states that when God illumines the reprobate with a temporary, unclear perception of His grace, they believe that God is merciful to them and thus obtain the gift of reconciliation, but this is indistinct and insufficiently clear. However, in the elect exclusively, the Spirit seals forgiveness of sins, “so that they apply it by special faith (speciali fide) to their own use” (OS, vol. 4, 20–23 [Institutes, 3.2.11f]; trans. Calvin: 1998, 21–24). Chrysostom considers certainty of salvation in present life hardly possible, “our lot […] is at present uncertainty to our last breath” (PG 60, 531 [In Rom. hom. 14.6; trans. NPNF 1, vol. 11, 445; Eno: 1984, 15).10 Once someone has passed away, he or she is secure and receives his or her reward. To avoid being overconfident and lazy after baptism, the very moment of justification, one should strive for a virtuous life after justification (Eno: 1984, 13ff; PG 60, 404; 431 [In Rom. hom. 2.3, 5.7]; PG 61, 22; 138 [In 1 Cor. hom. 2.3, 16.6]).11 The chief of all virtues is love, as especially love makes believers like God (PG 61, 286; 289 [In 1 Cor. hom. 33.6, 34.3]; Eno: 1984, 14f. See also Mitchell: 2000, 160; Rylaarsdam: 2006, 160f).

9 Faith ascribed to them “does not deserve to be called faith”. Yet, Calvin describes this faith as communis (‘common’), explaining “I call it ‘common’ because there is a great likeness and affinity between transitory faith and living and permanent faith”. 10 Justice is bestowed on everyone through the cross. The only human contribution is believing. When someone believes, s/he is immediately justified. Although, for Chrysostom, grace is more leading in the process of justification than the human response, it is unclear to what extents God and humans contribute to justification. See PG 60, 409; 447; 475 [In Rom. hom. 2.6, 7.4, 10.1]; Eno: 1984, 13; Rylaarsdam: 2006, 160. 11 However, experience shows that after baptism, people’s lives have changed for about ten to twenty days, according to Chrysostom. See PG 60, 480 [In Rom. hom. 10.5].

Is a Special Faith the Same as Saving Faith?

4.

171

Luther’s Understanding of the Faith in 1 Cor 12:9 and 13:2

Similar to Calvin’s concept of faith is Luther’s understanding of faith. Luther emphasises that 1 Cor 13:2 does not substantiate the thought that love instead of faith justifies and purifies, although it always accompanies saving faith (Luther: 1617, 436; WA 17.2, 164; Luther/Lenker: 1909/1995, vol. 7, 122f).12 Luther explains the faith mentioned in 1 Cor 13:2 in three ways. First, instead of the Christian faith, a general faith (fides generalis, ein gemeiner Glaube) in God and his power is meant. Judas had this general, non-salvific faith. In the margin of the 1617 edition of Luther’s Enarrationes, sive postillae, this interpretation is summarised as fides miraculorum. Second, Paul described someone with the true Christian faith and the ability to perform miracles, who is inclined to accept honour with such eagerness that he falls from love and faith, like the seed in the stony ground. Third, emphasising the necessity of love, Paul supposed an impossible situation. He considered love such an essential of faith that even faith that moves mountains would be nothing without love, were it possible to separate them. Luther opts for the third explanation, although he also accepts the other two, particularly the first. Luther’s favourite interpretation coincides, without mentioning him, with Chrysostom’s. The first option corresponds to Calvin’s, although Luther considers this faith ‘common’ (generalis) instead of ‘special’ (particularis) (Luther: 1617, 436; WA 17.2, 164f; Luther/Lenker: 1909/1995, vol. 7, 123f). According to Luther, the faith in 1 Cor 12:9, does not refer to ordinary, justifying faith, which is “essentially the property of every Christian”. He, like Calvin, understands it as a particular virtue or power of the Spirit, enabling people to work miracles in the name of Christ and may occur in impious, according to Matt 7:22 (WA 22, 182f; Luther/Lenker: 1909/1995, vol. 8, 213f). Thus, Luther’s understanding of the faith covers aspects from both Calvin’s and Chrysostom’s interpretations.

5.

Calvin’s Reception of Chrysostom’s Faith of Miracles Related to Four Types of Faith

Whereas Luther’s explanation had been more or less in line with both Chrysostom’s and Calvin’s views, Calvin’s exegesis began to prevail over Chrysostom’s and Luther’s shortly after Calvin’s death. A faith of miracles has since been regarded as non-salvific and therefore untrue in the Protestant tradition. The 12 To understand Scripture, Luther considered his postillae a more important text genre than his sermons and lectures. See Rasmussen: 2010, 154.

172

Jeannette Kreijkes

1584 Doctrinae Christianae Compendium, Ursinus’ explanation of the Heidelberg Catechism, and the 1625 Synopsis Purioris Theologiae illustrate the subtle shift from one species of faith with different meanings to different species of faith with each one meaning. Four species (species) are enumerated: historical, temporary, faith in miracles, and justifying faith (Ursinus: 1584, 154; Synopsis: 2016, 230f). Bellarmine points out that this distinction is based on Calvin’s Institutes 3.2.9 among others (Bellarmine: 1594, 347).13 The Compendium considers the fides miraculorum a certain conviction through a unique revelation of God that an extraordinary, miraculous work or whatever the believer asks, will happen by the divine power. 1 Cor 13:2 and Matt 17:20 prove the existence of this faith (Ursinus: 1584, 156).14 Whereas historical and temporary faith extend to everything in Scripture, this special faith (specialis fides) rests on a specific divine revelation (Ursinus: 1584, 156f). Corresponding to Calvin’s description of the special faith in that it is incomplete, the explanation in the Compendium does not necessarily refer to apprehending Christ. The Compendium ascribes the superficiality that characterises Chrysostom’s concept of a miraculous faith, to temporary faith (Ursinus: 1584, 155). The Synopsis explains the faith in miracles as “faith in particular promises of some temporal or spiritual good that not all of the elect share, or that is bestowed on some people who are not elect” (Synopsis: 2016, 232f). Like the Compendium, the Synopsis restricts this miraculous faith to special revelations. Additionally, it mentions a subdivision into an active and a passive form of miraculous faith. The active form is “that special gift of God, whereby someone believes that he himself is about to perform something miraculous […] through the power of God” as in 1 Cor 13:2. Passive faith is attributed to someone who believes “that he will partake of singular benefits that come about by God’s special promise through miracles or some other means.” This is illustrated by the man who had faith to be healed by Paul (Acts 14:9) (Synopsis: 2016, 232f). Both the Compendium and the Synopsis refer to 1 Cor 13:2, but they do not mention 1 Cor 12:9 or John 2:23ff, or call it a fides particularis. Thus, the distinction in the Compendium and the Synopsis goes beyond a diversity of meaning (πολύσημον), as it concerns different species. Was not the very abundance of different species of faith in the Middle Ages the fundamental point Calvin was arguing against? Yet, it might have been Calvin’s own distinction that has contributed to a new differentiation between various species of faith.

13 Bellarmine also refers to Martin Chemnitz’ Examination of the Council of Trent (see, for example, Chemnitz: 1971). 14 The Latin text has: “Miraculorum fides, est certa persuasio ex singulari revelatione Divina, qua quis est certus eventurum potentia divina opus aliquod extraordinarium, vel miraculosum, & contra naturam, quod petit fieri, & eventurum dicit.”

Is a Special Faith the Same as Saving Faith?

6.

173

Conclusion

Calvin’s answer to the question in the title, “Is a special faith the same as saving faith?” would be ambivalent. Calvin’s concept of a specialis fides as a special faith by which the elect receive forgiveness of sins, is saving, whereas Calvin regards a fides particularis as not necessarily justifying. As Scripture calls it faith, it is the same faith as the saving faith of the elect, but because it is incomplete, it is faith in another sense, which does not justify. The ambiguity in Calvin’s concept of faith, which Calvin noticed himself as well (OS, vol. 4, 23 [Institutes, 3.2.13]),15 has contributed to his ambivalent appropriation of Chrysostom’s view of a faith of miracles, saying that it is slightly different from his own. Whereas Calvin takes refuge in extending the meaning of faith as used in 1 Cor 12:9 and 13:2 to harmonise it with one real faith, neither Luther nor Chrysostom strived for this consistency. Calvin’s ambiguous appeal to Chrysostom’s faith of miracles and the later development into four species of faith show the impossibility for harmonising faith as the “firm and certain knowledge of God’s benevolence toward us […] sealed upon our hearts” with faith the “impious” have, for the very reason that this faith is not sealed upon their hearts.

Bibliography Primary Sources Aquinas, St. Thomas (2010), Commentary on the Gospel of John, Chapters 1–5, Fabian Larcher/James A. Weisheipl (trans.), Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press. Bellarmine, Robert (1594), Disputationes de controversiis christiani fidei adversus huius temporis haereticos, vol. 4, Venetiae: Joannes Malachinus. Calvin, John (1960/1998), Institutes of the Christian Religion, John T. McNeill (ed.), Ford Lewis Battles (trans.), Albany: Ages Software. Calvin, John (1960/1996), The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, D.W./ T.F. Torrance (ed.), John W. Fraser (trans.), Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Luther, Martin (1617), Enarrationes, sive postillae Martini Lutheri maiores, in lectiones, quae ex evangelicis etc., Francofurtum: Nicolai Hoffmann.

15 “Tenenda etiam est ambigua verbi significatio.” trans. Calvin: 1998, vol. 3, 24: “We must understand that the meaning of the word ‘faith’ is ambiguous.”

174

Jeannette Kreijkes

Luther, Martin (1995), Sermons of Martin Luther. Electronic Edition, vol. 7–8 (reproductions of Luther’s Epistle Sermons, vol. 2–3, Minneapolis: The Luther Press, 1909), John Nicholas Lenker (ed.), Charlottesville: InteLex Corporation. Synopsis (2016), Synopsis Purioris Theologiae: Synopsis of a Purer Theology. Latin Text and English Translation, vol. 2: Disputations 24–42, Henk van den Belt/Riemer A. Faber/ Andreas J. Beck/William den Boer (ed.), Leiden: Brill. Ursinus, Zacharias (1584), Doctrinae Christianae Compendium, Seu, Commentarii Catechetici, Geneva: Eustache Vignon.

Secondary Literature Chemnitz, Martin/Kramer, Fred (trans.) (1971), Examination of the Council of Trent, vol. 1, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House. Eno, Robert B. (1984), Some Patristic Views on the Relationship of Faith and Works in Justification, RechAug 19, 3–27. Mitchell, Margaret M. (2000), The Heavenly Trumpet: John Chrysostom and the Art of Pauline Interpretation, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Pitkin, Barbara (1999a), What Pure Eyes Could See: Calvin’s Doctrine of Faith in Its Exegetical Context, New York: Oxford University Press. Pitkin, Barbara (1999b), Seeing and Believing in the Commentaries on John by Martin Bucer and John Calvin, ChH 68.4, 865–885. Pitkin, Barbara (2009), Themes – Faith and Justification, in H.J. Selderhuis/Henry J. Baron (ed.), The Calvin Handbook, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 288–299. Raith, Charles II (2014), Aquinas and Calvin on Romans: God’s Justification and Our Participation, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rasmussen, Tarald (2010), The Biblical Canon of the Lutheran Reformation, in Einar Thomassen (ed.), Canon and Canonicity: The Formation and Use of Scripture, Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 143–158. Rylaarsdam, David (2006), Interpretations of Paul in the Early Church, in D.E. Aune (ed.), Rereading Paul Together: Protestant and Catholic Perspectives on Justification, Grand Rapids: Baker, 146–168. Walchenbach, John R. (2010), John Calvin as Biblical Commentator: An Investigation into Calvin’s Use of John Chrysostom as an Exegetical Tutor, Eugene: Wipf and Stock [reprint of diss. 1974].

Reformations

Csilla Gábor

Religious Polemics in Late Sixteenth Century Hungary: Reconstruction and Interpretation*

1.

Viewpoints for a Wider Understanding of the Context

The 500-year (symbolic) anniversary of the Lutheran Reform, apart from its rightful festive characteristics, is also an excellent opportunity to assess through fresh criteria the evolution, the mode, and the significance of the “new beginning” – the rise of pluralism in Europe – that fundamentally defined church, society, mentality, and culture. Furthermore, it is an occasion to nuance the previous picture through formerly unknown details. It also prompts us to investigate the role played in this process by the “Papist” tradition1 (which though significantly weakened and rejected during the Reformation, was still constantly present), respectively, to survey the ideological paths along which Catholicism articulated (occasionally, re-articulated) its own identity compared to the selfinterpretation of the Reform(ation) which was forming new ecclesiastic communities. This jubilee, however, also urges us to revise some firmly established biases on the part of researchers. It is high time to deconstruct the preconception that had the tendency to perceive only antagonism and a sharp caesura between the preand post-Reformation “periods” represented in a hierarchical relationship. The core of this set of problems, which cannot be further detailed here, is quite suggestively revealed in those literary and cultural historical periodization systems in which, due to latent ideological biases, the Middle Ages are explicitly divided from Humanism and the Reformation, the entire period being placed into a narrative based on the idea of progress.2 * The study was completed with the support of the Ministry of Human Capacities, reference number: REB-17-ELOADAS-0002. 1 The problem of continuity and discontinuity is raised and its international relevance is also shown in volumes worthy of consideration, which analyse and contextualise the relationship between Luther and the (late medieval) monastic and mystical heritage (Bultmann/Leppin/ Lindner: 2007; Leppin: 2016). 2 Ágnes Korondi’s monography on Hungarian monastic codices contains an important chapter

178

Csilla Gábor

Hence, the point of view that constitutes the background of the present analysis does not only consider the caesura, but also the continuity overarching these artificially established period limits. The Reformation is not considered only in the context of the declining late medieval Catholicism, but in the same measure also in connection with the late medieval renewal movements. Meanwhile the burning need of structural reforms in the Church is fully recognized, and the timeliness of precise reflection upon matters of faith in the sixteenth century is also taken into account. The process-like nature of confessional separation (confessionalization) is considered, the relationship between tradition and innovation being also discussed in this horizon. The analysis is based on a conscious awareness that today’s denominational boundaries do not entirely correspond to those in the sixteenth century. And finally, the simultaneous operation of the “old” and the “new” is remembered as well, so that the dominance of the one should not obliterate the presence of the other. The title suggests a general overview on the subject. However, knowing the perils of this genre, a representative case study on the initial phase and the process of denominational diversification seemed to be a more appropriate solution. Thus, the present paper reconstructs and analyses a series of interrelated Hungarian-language polemic writings from the last decades of the sixteenth century. It deals with the works of two preachers: Miklós Telegdi (1535–1586) and András Monoszlói (1552–1601), both of them Catholic, and it formulates conjectures about the missing work of a third (this time a Protestant) one, as far as this is possible, based on the scattered existing references. As the analysed sources are polemic documents regarding matters of faith, we may consider it natural that the texts place a greater emphasis on the opposition of the two denominations, rather than on their continuity or on the common roots of their theological views. We can also anticipate that the debaters’ attitude speaks about the effects of the Council of Trent in Hungary, at least in the firm emphasis on separation and opposition. This happens long before the rulings of the Council were officially announced and made compulsory.3

presenting the previous research history on the topic. The author pays attention to the codex literature’s status in the Hungarian literary canon. She explores in a nuanced analysis the misleading consequences of the many ideological burdens on understanding. Her conclusions are relevant from our point of view (Korondi: 2016, 21–47). Jacques Le Goff ’s book (Le Goff: 2015) poses and problematizes the question on a theoretical level. 3 The official, solemn announcement took place in only one diocese, that of Gyo˝r, in 1579, during the bishopric of György Draskovich (see Fazekas: 1998, 154–164; Tóth: 1999; Varga: 2014).

Religious Polemics in Late Sixteenth Century Hungary

2.

The Source Texts

2.1

Telegdi’s Reasons

179

The opus that laid the basis of the later debate is entitled Several Notable Reasons for which Miklós Telegdi, Bishop of Pécs Cannot and Will Not Accept the Doctrine of Martin Luther and His Progeny (1581). It is an apologetic treatise, published in Nagyszombat (today Trnava, Slovakia) in 1581. We may call it a “domestic edition”. It is one of the apologetic writings issued by the press led by Telegdi, which had been functioning since 1577. This press was meant to instruct and to strengthen through its editions the Catholic confessional identity; besides it also had a militant character: it served representational purposes demonstrating the authority and power of the religious community to which it was dedicated. One of its important aims was to consolidate the position of Catholicism in the spiritual and devotional space of Nagyszombat,4 a town that had gradually become a cultural and religious centre, in spite of the continuous internal discord, in the period of confessionalization when the struggle for denominational dominance had not yet been settled. At this stage, the city had already been the seat of the Esztergom Archdiocese and Chapter for decades (i. e. since the Turkish occupation of Esztergom in 1543, except for a short transitional period when the seat was moved to Pozsony, today Bratislava, Slovakia). Meanwhile the expansion of Lutheran and Calvinist Reformation was also palpable, the two denominations becoming differentiated only at the end of the sixteenth century.5 The results of the organizational activity of archbishop Nicolaus Olahus (1493–1568) aimed at the church structure and education had started to bear fruit, though with some delay thanks to the activity of Telegdi who was supported by Olahus. Telegdi had bought and renovated the Jesuits’ press left in Vienna,6 in order to boost the renascent Catholic religious life.7 The Several Notable Reasons, one of Telegdi’s last works, is a kind of vernacular summary of his views, displaying his characteristic usage of language and writing. The booklet is directed against the doctrine of Luther and of his “progeny”; the dedication, addressed “To the Christian readers”, does not resort to primarily theological arguments in order to justify the writing of this opus. 4 5 6 7

About Telegdi, of late, see: Pete: 2002; Horváth: 2013. A summary of the situation with regard to our period: Granasztói: 2004, 65–71. Further details: Iványi/Gárdonyi: 1927, 15–28; Käfer: 1977, 5–14; Bánfi/V. Ecsedy: 2014, 76–78. The first product of the press was a code by Lorenzo Magio, an Austrian Jesuit provincial intended for the Marian congregation of the Bishop of Olomouc’s seminar: Canones seu leges eorum, qui in sanctissima congregatione B. Mariae semper virginis, quae in seminario episcopali Olomucensi instituta est, vivunt, in 1578.

180

Csilla Gábor

Instead, the author refers to his “enemies” who would propagate that he, despite having become acquainted with the true faith (Luther’s), is afraid of going over to the Lutheran side, since he seeks personal gain. His answer is: many persons, less talented than him (i. e. Miklós Telegdi) are spoiled with great incomes by the Lutherans, hence, he would have no reason to be afraid of starving on their side. More vehemently put: “I do not understand why I would need to stay in the Roman Church against my conscience for something that I would find also among them [the Lutherans].”8 This statement is worth being briefly projected on the biographical data: Telegdi had acted as the administrator of the Esztergom Archdiocese since 1577; in 1579 he was appointed bishop of Pécs, but he could never settle in his diocese as it was located in the area occupied by the Turks; hence he was unable to collect its incomes. It is, however, true that in order to solve his personal and official financial problems, he received the village Zága (today Zˇaga, Slovenia), and in 1580 he was appointed royal vice–chancellor: based on his titles, he belonged among the prelates, yet the unresolved difficulties in church organisation caused problems to him, too.9 Another reason for persisting in the Roman faith, according to Telegdi, is: should he join the followers of Luther, he would be damned; so, he chooses to suffer his enemies’ calumnies, over “gambling away my soul”.10 The hinted or concealed signs of the linguistic aggression usually exhibited in orality by the opposing parties disdaining each other, are not surprising in the text as well, given the situation of religious polemics. For, as Hans Robert Jauß declares, “Polemics suppose a final horizon: closed truth and the solid form of the religious tenet. They are not looking for truth, they express certainty.”11 Thus the arguing parties consider themselves the depositaries of the truth (this being the root of the linguistic aggression and the reason for the closed horizon), so the ideological mobility experienced in the text (and in the text of the sequel) is really surprising. On the one hand, we have to do with the clash of a complete set of theses and views, crystallized and considered final, organised in two or more camps. On the other hand, we can easily trace changes and differentiations, which are the consequences of a continuous pressure to nuance and refine the doctrines 8 “Nem értem tahat mi szükseg volna lelki esmeretem ellen oly dologert maradnom a’ Romai egyhazba, mellyet ü közötökis meg talalnec” (Telegdi: 1581, 3r) [The pages of booklet are not numbered, only the quires. The copy of the Transylvanian Museum I used has page numbers written in pencil. I refer to these in the main]. 9 More data about the labyrinthine details, coloured by personal disagreements, can be found along with further literature in: Pete: 2002, 8–12. 10 “Lelkemet kartyara vetni” (Telegdi: 1581, 3v). 11 “Das Religionsgespräch setzt einen Endhorizont: die abgeschlossene Wahrheit und verfestigte Gestalt der Glaubenslehren, voraus. Hier wird Wahrheit nicht länger gesucht, sondern ihre Gewißheit behauptet“ (Jauß: 1987, 253–254).

Religious Polemics in Late Sixteenth Century Hungary

181

during the confessionalization process. The elaboration of dogmas was unavoidable even for the “Papist” community, pictured as static. “[T]ruth is one, deception is multifarious” (Oláh: 2007, 329), this is how the views of the Catholic camp can be summarized. However, this one truth has to be always reformulated according to the changing interdenominational context. As for the subject matters of the 24 reasons, both fierce accusations reflecting an authoritative position and the recurring topics of the period’s significant theological disputes are discussed. According to the text, the situation is the exact opposite of the slanders spread by Telegedi’s adversaries: the Protestants are idolaters (Telegdi: 1581, 4r), moreover, they have a sympathy for the devil (second reason, Telegdi: 1581, 7r), they are false prophets, who “display Christ here and there,”12 in accordance with an admonition-prophecy by Jesus, quoted from the Gospel of Matthew, i. e. false prophets will appear and deceive many people13 (third reason, Telegdi: 1581, 12r). Another reason says that Luther was not motivated by “the love for truth, but by jealousy,”14 the anger and hate for the Pope, on his road to innovation (eleventh reason, Telegdi: 1581, 43r).15 Telegdi also states, illustrated by a copious number of examples, that Luther himself had doubts about the truth of his statements (twelfth reason, Telegdi: 1581, 44v);16 furthermore, that the writings of the reformers, in many instances, blaspheme God, the sacraments and God’s saints: “Martin Luther and Calvin blame God for mankind’s iniquity”17 (fourteenth reason, Telegdi: 1581, 47r), they “deprive [the sacraments] of the purifying grace”18 (fourteenth reason, Telegdi: 1581, 48v). The latter thesis points toward (more) serious disagreements, as it mentions the pivotal questions of justification, the considerations about the number and nature of the sacraments, furthermore, it discusses the Lutheran and Calvinist interpretation of the cult of the saints. We must notice, however, that Telegdi does not approach these issues from the direction of theological thought: he does not 12 “Kic imit amot mutogattyác a’ Christust.” 13 The locus: Matthew 24,11–13: “And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.”. 14 “Nem az igazsagnac szerelme, hanem az iregyseg.” 15 Telegdi refers to a proverb, which Luther supposedly wanted engraved on his coffin: “Pestis eram uiuus, moriens tua mors ero papa [I have been a pest for you in my lifetime, Pope, I shall be your death in my dying].” (Telegdi: 1581, 43v). About this sentence and its impact see Kaufmann: 2006, 210. 16 For example, quoting Joannes Mathesius, the compiler of the Table Talk, he relates a story about a woman in doubt, who complained about the weakness of her faith to Luther, and he responded: “Most certainly, good woman, if you consider these true, and believe them, since they are true, your faith is stronger than mine [Bizonyara, io aszony, ha ezeket igaznac tartod es hiszed, mikeppen hogy igazakis, erösb hited vagyon ennalamnal]” (Telegdi: 1581, 45r–v). 17 “Luter Marton es Caluinus, Istenre harettyak az emberi gonossagnac okat”. 18 “Meg fosztyac… a tisztéto malasztul.”

182

Csilla Gábor

deal, for example, with the theoretical questions about the intercession of the saints, he only highlights flagrant instances from the examples of the other side (Luther, Melanchthon, Bullinger, Johannes Brenz, according to the marginal notes), counting on the uproar of the readers: “They refer to the immaculate Virgin Mary as one of the sinful women, sometimes they accuse her of not taking proper care of her son, sometimes they call her disdainful, sometimes faithless, sometimes wrathful and vituperative.”19 Telegdi’s text, nevertheless, does not only bring into play Lutheran (and less often, Calvinist) manifestations suitable for stirring up passions, but also the classic topics of the Catholic-Protestant disputes: an entire chapter, the fourth one, discusses the apostolic tradition (Telegdi: 1581, 14r), the fifth and the sixth elaborate on the sola Scriptura principle, the controversies about the biblical canon, and in general, the issues of Bible-interpretation (Telegdi: 1581, 15v, 17v). According to the fifteenth reason (Telegdi: 1581, 49v), Luther and his disciples encourage physical libertinism – insomuch as they do not give any importance to deeds, hence, they deny the meritorious character of these.20 The chapter criticizes the sola fides principle through pointing out its perils, while treating the question of justification from a “Papist” point of view. A set of specific arguments treat the organisational structure of ecclesiastic communities (in a more general sense: society). According to the eighth reason, the reformers are “headless feet”21 and the lack of a hierarchical order leads to chaos – he concludes, having listed the leaders of the Book of Genesis from Adam to Moses, and the first popes, starting with St Peter. From the very beginning, “the communities of the faithful have been lead, according to nature’s law, mostly by one person, such as a high priest.”22 The issue of organisation points again to the root of the disagreements: it raises the problem of the apostolic succession for discussion. He barely starts listing the popes: after Peter came Linus followed then by Cletus and Clement, “then, in an orderly manner, there has been a visible

19 “A szeplötelen szüz Mariat a’ bünös aszonyallatoc közze szamlalyac, es neha aual vadollyac, hogy fiara nem iol viselt gondot, Neha azt mondgyac felöle hogy keuely, Neha, hogy hitetlen, Neha, hogy haragos es feddödö volt” (Telegdi: 1581, 49r). 20 A Luther-citation from De captivitate babylonica, “Nec nos cum Deo unquam aliter agere possumus, quam fide in verbum promissionis eius. Opera ille nihil curat nec eis indiget [There is no other way to work with God, but with faith in his promise. Action does not count to him, it is not necessary].”, leads him to the conclusion recurring in the later polemics: “If God does not consider our actions, we are free to do either good or not [ha Isten semmit nem gondol a’ mi chelekedetünkel, szabadoc vagyunc vélle, ha chelekedünc iot vagy nem]” (Telegdi: 1581, 50v). 21 “Feietlen laboc” (Telegdi: 1581, 28r). 22 “Az hiueknec gyülekezeti, a’ természetnec töruenyebe, fökeppen egytül, vgy mint fö paptul igazgattatot” (Telegdi: 1581, 31v).

Religious Polemics in Late Sixteenth Century Hungary

183

high priest, high pastor, the vicar of Christ, the bishop in Peter’s seat at all times to this day, and it is so today too in the Holy Mother Church.”23 Later on Telegdi returns to the image of the headless feet, using it to illustrate his adversaries’ inconstancy, describing their internal quarrels as self-serving rivalry and their constantly shifting views as deterrent traits (Telegdi: 1581, 41r). In the same place, he lists in chronological order and confronts to one another Luther’s statements about papal primacy. First, he cites Luther’s letter to the Pope from 151824 commenting on it: “even though he had already started to oppose the doctrine of the Roman Church, nonetheless, he respected the dignity and principality of the Pope enough to submit himself to Pope Leo’s power and judgement.”25 A few lines below, he refers to a change: “a little while later he turned and pointed back the scythe, he slapped and refuted what he had previously written and preached, when he wrote against the Pope and his principality, when he yielded in nothing to the Pope, and when he opposed the Pope in everything.”26 He uses the alleged inconsistency about the number of the sacraments to prove Luther’s inconstancy, who mentions one sacrament in the De captivitate Babylonica ecclesiae and two in the catechism.27 When he cites the changing views of either Luther or Melanchthon regarding the number of the sacraments,28 or Melanchthon’s statements about the nature of free will,29 he actually unwillingly outlines the development of the Lutheran thinking. 23 “Oszton rend szerent ez mai napiglan, minden üdökbe, egy valaki lathatando fö pap, fö pasztor, a’ Christusnac hel tartoia es Peternec szekeben ülö pispöc volt, s-mostis vagon az anyaszentegy-hazba” (Telegdi: 1581, 32v). 24 “Quare beatissime pater, prostratum me pedibus tuae beatitudinis offero, cum omnibus quae sum et habeo. Viuifica, occide, uoca, reuoca, approba. Vocem tuam uocem Christi in te praesidentis et loquentis agnoscam” (Telegdi: 1581, 41v). The text of the epistle is available in the Weimar Edition of Luther’s works: WA 1, 529, lines 24–25. 25 “Noha immar az Romai egyhaz tudomanyat ellenzeni kezdette vala, mind az altal a papa meltosagat es feiedelemseget annéra böchüle hogy mindenestül fogua Leo papa hatalma es itileti alá vete magat” (Telegdi: 1581, 41r–v). 26 “Nem soc idöuel annac utanna meg fordeta es visza szegeze a kaszát, s a mit az elöt irt es praedicallot vala, azt arczul veré es meg czafola, midön papa ellen es az ü feiedelemsege ellen ira, papánac semmibe nem engede, söt mindenbe ellene veté magát” (Telegdi: 1581, 41v–42r). 27 In the dedication written to De captivitate babylonica, Luther only theoretically raises the possibility of only one sacrament. Telegdi quotes this: “if one speaks according to the Scripture, there is only one sacrament [ha az iras szerent kel szollani chac egy szentség vagyon].” (Telegdi: 1581, 42r) – of course, only to catch his opponent contradicting himself. 28 According to him, Melanchthon “sometimes counts two sacraments, sometimes three, and sometimes four [neha ket szentseget szamlal, neha harmat, neha negyet].”, and according to the marginal notes, the source is the 1522 edition of Loci communes, respectively, the Apologia Confessionis Augustanae (Telegdi: 1581, 42r). 29 “In some places, he [Melanchthon] says that humans have no free will. Elsewhere he says that they have. And that it is a monstrous lie and the glory of the Manichaeans to deny the existence of free will [Nehol azt mondgya [Melanchthon] hogy az emberbe semmi szabad

184

Csilla Gábor

This booklet eventually places the innovators, called idolaters, into a negative church-historical tradition, when it labels their teachings “the jumbled pigwash of old heresy”30 (ninth reason, Telegdi: 1581, 38r), and when it states that each new aberration (i. e. the various “rebellious” communities) continued the one started by Luther, they all derived from him (twentieth reason, Telegdi: 1581, 65v). Furthermore, to confirm the novelty of the reformers, it is pointed out that all of them (Luther, Bucer) used to be Catholic monks, just as “lady Katharina, his safarina [an archaic wordform for prostitute, borrowed from German], used to be a nun.”31 These innovators would be the ones who point at Christ elsewhere than where He really is. Telegdi takes care of being verifiable and accountable: he states about his method that whatever I wrote about Luther and his progeny, I have not invented it myself, I took it from their own books and writings. You will see that I have given the source for everything and I have noted on the margins of this booklet, where you can find in their writings what I said about them. Should you doubt my words, look them up, and you are free to reproach me, if you do not find it the way I said it.32

Ultimately, this book does not only give an account about the dogmatic differences related to the Catholics, but it also offers a preview about the disagreements within different Protestant opinions and the evolution of these differences.

2.2

The Missing Link

Although Telegdi’s Notable reasons is primarily polemicizing with the early reformers, the founders of the movement (most of them already dead by the time Telegdi wrote his work),33 his writing did not remain without a response. A certain János Dávid formulated an answer, this text however has unfortunately been lost. We have hardly any information about the author and his work. At present there are more hypotheses about both the text and its author than facts. Jeno˝ Zoványi’s Hungarian encyclopaedia of Protestant church history lists him

30 31 32

33

akarat ninchen. Nehol azt beszelli hogy vagyon. Es hogy rettenetes hazugsag s- az Manicheusoknac dichössege, tagadni a’ szabad akaratot]” (Telegdi: 1581, 42r). “A regi eretneksegeknec egybe zauart mosléka.” “Catalin aszon az ü safarinaia apacza volt” (third reason, Telegdi: 1581, 13r). “Valamit Luterrül es az ü maradekirul iroc, nem magamtul gondoltam, hanem tulaidon könyuökböl es irasokbol vöttem. Hiszem meg latod hogy mindennec helyet adom, es e’ könyuechkenec karaian meg iegyzem hol talalod meg az ü irasokban a’ mit felölöc mondoc. Keresd vtannam ha ketelkedel beszedembe, es bator szememre vesd, ha vgy nem talalod” (Telegdi: 1581, 3v). Martin Luther died in 1546, Melanchthon in 1560 and Calvin in 1564.

Religious Polemics in Late Sixteenth Century Hungary

185

as János B. Dávid, Calvinist pastor (1977a: 135). In another work the same author identifies him as the just mentioned respondent polemicist: “he did not leave Telegdi’s work without a say” (Zoványi: 1977b, 300). He assumes that the answer to Telegdi could have been written between 1581 and 1586. He also mentions that he worked in Csallóköz (Zˇitný ostrov, Slovakia), in Csütörtök (Sˇtvrtok na Ostrove, Slovakia) in 1580, then, in 1582, in one of the churches of Bars (Tekov, Slovakia). He was one of the persons to sign the decrees of the Synod of Galánta (Galanta, Slovakia) in 1592 (Zoványi: 1977b,163), where the separation of the Calvinists from the “Lutheran diocese” was decided. He was probably already dead by 1596 (Zoványi: 1977a, 135). His name has surfaced in the stock inventory of the college library of Sárospatak: according to a note he owned Péter Melius’s volume of sermons, St John’s Revelations Explained Truly and According to the Scripture in Sermons from the Writings of Pious, Wise and Scholarly Men34 published at Várad (Oradea, Romania) in 1568: “Ex libris Joannis David empt. Cziötörtöchini An. D. 1580” (Szinyei: 1884, 16, item nr. 63). Even though he could have been an active member of the Protestant church organisation and may have played a part in the separation of the Lutheran and Calvinist congregations he might not have been a Protestant pastor of the highest rank, or with a very thorough education. He must have compiled his answer to Telegdi’s writing before the formal sesparation of Lutherans and Calvinists. The content of Dávid’s work has partially been preserved in a later print, András Monoszlói’s Apologia (1588). This is a reply to János Dávid’s writing formulated in Telegdi’s place, who died before being able to respond to his Protestant opponent. András Monoszlói was a well-known Catholic polemicist of the late sixteenth century. When writing this work, he was provost of Pozsony (Bratislava, Slovakia), later becoming the bishop of Veszprém. He took over the administration of the press of Nagyszombat before Telegdi’s death. The Latin preface to the Apologia reveals that Dávid’s response had been completed before Telegdi died and the bishop was familiar with its content, but elderly and sick he was already unable to defend himself, therefore, he asked Monoszlói to do this.35 Before examining the text, itself, let us see whether Monoszlói’s statements about Dávid contain some data worth of attention. The fact that he calls János Dávid a heretic and Satan’s henchman (Monoszlói: 1588, B1r) is less useful information. He adds that “I would not even call him a priest: he would regret it 34 Az Szent Ianosnac tött jelenesnec igaz es iras szerint valo magyarazasa prédikatioc szerint a iambor bölcz es tudos emberec irasabol szereztetet. 35 “Opus autem praesens, ante annum circiter tertium ad admonitionem Reuerendissimi domini olim Nicolai Telegdini […] susceperam tractandum (contra quendam Dauidicum Ioannem…) prout contextus libri, facile quemlibet fidelem edocebit” (Monoszlói: 1588, [:] 3v).

186

Csilla Gábor

himself, and I would hurt my God with it.”36 Finally, he settles on the label deacon Ianos Dauid, which can be both a detractive term and an expression of the belief that a Protestant pastor does not meet the Catholic requirements for priesthood. In the Latin preface, he also recounts that, though Dávid considers himself an apostle and doctor in law, he is unable to understand either the things he is told to or his own statements.37 The writing itself, according to Monoszlói, is “not a book, because a book has a meaning, but that writing […] has no top, no bottom, it messes up the articles of faith, as I shall point out neatly.”38 This work was probably never printed. This is suggested by Monoszlói’s quoting method. Page and chapter references to Dávid’s work are nowhere to be found in the Apologia, not even where he quotes verbatim, printed in cursive, although Monszlói otherwise is painstakingly accurate. The length of the other disputant’s writing is not mentioned either, Monoszlói’s disparaging note however allows us to conjecture that it was not a few-pages long paper: even though “he does not follow any order in the demonstration, he mixes up a lot of things, one can barely understand what he wants to say,”39 still, “he dared to write a book and to respond to a scholarly person’s writing.”40 According to the Latin preface, Monoszlói started working in 1585 (the year before Telegdi’s death), and the book was published in 1588. An external addition also emphasizes the degeneration of the dispute: while Telegdi’s text was 188 pages long, Monoszlói’s counted 570 pages.

2.3

Response to the Response: Monoszlói’s Apologia

When the rejoinder to Dávid’s work was published, Telegdi had already been dead for two years. As member of a representative cultural and spiritual group in Nagyszombat, besides taking over the direction of the press, Monoszlói also inherited the task of writing a new polemic writing. Several decades later we meet a fairly similar situation: the Calvinist Miklós Gyarmathi answered to Monoszlói’s book about the veneration of the saints (1589) in a – this time printed – book (Gyarmathi: 1598), and the task to respond was inherited by the young, though not inexperienced Péter Pázmány (Pázmány: 36 “Papnac sem mondhatom, mert ü magais banna azt, Istenemetis meg bantanam vele” (Monoszlói: 1588, B1r–v). 37 “[János Dávid] se, iuxta Apostolum, profitetur esse Legis Doctorem, neque tamen intelligat quid loquatur, vel de quibus affirmet” (Monoszlói: 1588, [:]3v). 38 “Nem könyuet, mert a’ könyünec mégis ertelme vagyon, de annac az irasnac […] sem feie, sem laba ki nem techic, zuria zauaria öszue az hitnec agazattit, mikent rend szerint meg mutatom” (Monoszlói: 1588, B1v). 39 “Semmi rend tartasa a’ fel vet dolgoknac bizonyetasara ninchen, hanem az soc dolgokat egybe zurya zavarya, alég érti ember mit akar mondani” (Monoszlói: 1588, B3v–B4r). 40 “Megis könyuet merezlet irnya, es tudos embernec irasara felelni” (Monoszlói: 1588, B3v).

Religious Polemics in Late Sixteenth Century Hungary

187

2016), because of the death of Monoszlói who by that time had become bishop of Veszprém. The Apologia was Monoszlói’s first printed work, followed later by further Latin and Hungarian apologetic writings. Its structure partially follows that of Telegdi’s (and most likely, Dávid’s) polemic by refuting Dávid’s objections. And since János Dávid’s book has a second part, “about the Antichrist,”41 Monoszlói also adds a similar thematic unit to his work refuting his opponents. The parallelism in structure does not always entail that the content of the two works completely overlaps. The train of thought is obviously influenced by János Dávid’s response to Telegdi’s chapters. The headers offer guidance in the evolution of the train of thought. For example, if Telegdi’s first reason relates that the reformers are idolaters, Monoszlói’s corresponding textual unit at first discourses lengthily about the hardship of understanding the Scripture (Monoszlói: 1588, B2r–B3v)42 and only afterwards promises a four-point response to János Dávid’s accusations. According to Monoszlói: 1. Telegdi and the Catholics are not wolves, “as Ianos Dauid wrote”;43 2. they are not idolaters; 3. by contrast, Dávid and the other contemporary heretics are idolaters; and finally, 4. “I shall respond in short to his other blasphemies.”44 Since heresy is idolatry – as Telegdi lengthily discussed this – and the reformers are heretics, Monoszlói’s detailed conclusion, presented in the header, is obvious: “The Roman Mother Church is not idolatrous.”45 The reason for this divergence from the original structural and thematic pattern, as stated in the header, is none other than János Dávid, who distracts the dispute with his confusing questions. Monoszlói’s arguments are analogical to Telegdi’s, but they are much more extensive. They both lump all the reformers together: “Lutherans, Calvinists,

41 “Mely az Antichristusrol vagyon” (Monoszlói: 1588, 430). 42 There is no space here for a detailed textual analysis. However, it can be stated that the argumentation links erroneous Bible interpretation and idolatry. According to this, both interpretations by incompetent people (those not having proper knowledge, who for example, are not able to make the difference between the literal and the spiritual meaning of the Scripture) and any exegesis motivated by bad intention lead to misinterpretations: “we are not to believe (…) that the Gospel is in the literal reading of the Scripture, but in its internal meaning [ne vellyüc (…) hogy az Euangelium talaltassec az irasnac betü szerint valo igeieben, hanem belsö ertelmeben].” (Monoszlói: 1588, B2r). Respectively: “the devil also used the Holy Scripture against our Lord [az ördögis szent irassal élt legyen vrunc ellen]” (Monoszlói: 1588, B2v). 43 “Az mint iria Dauid Ianos” (Monoszlói: 1588, B4r). 44 “Az ü töb karomlasara meg felelec röuideden” (Monoszlói: 1588, B4r). 45 “Az Romai Anyaszentegyhaz Nem Balvanyozo” (Monoszlói: 1588, 44–66).

188

Csilla Gábor

Zwinglians, and other such spiritual thieves”46 as Monoszlói summarily describes them (1588, 4). They both use the differences and the internal quarrels between the trends of the Reformation to prove that movement is erratic.47 On the other hand, the faith of the Roman Church has always been the same, since the very beginning: “We have been living in the same Roman faith from the beginning, and we are in it peaceful.”48 Monoszlói projects the opposition between the old and the new faith to a personal level, stating that “the bishop of Pécs […] can trace back the origins of his calling and mission to the Apostles, but yours would not go further than Martin Luther; your office will come to an end there.”49 In connection with this subject, he also outlines the “nature” of heresy: according to this, its source is that “the common people do not obey the priests (priests indeed), who are God’s representatives.”50 They seem to preach the true faith, but they are actually wolves in sheep’s skin,51 who “cover themselves in the fair words and revelations of God’s law, as if it were the wool of sheep.”52 Another criterion of heresy would be the selection from among books and articles of faith according to one’s preference as well as the arbitrary interpretation of the Scripture: the reformers “take no notice of the inner sense, but they take the bare

46 “Lutherec, Caluinistac, Zuinglianusoc, es egieb effele lelki toluaioc.” 47 An illustrative example from Monoszlói: “amongst yourselves you are contentious, quarrelsome, and disunited, as the writings of Luther, Calvin, and the others show [közöttetec penig viszauonyoc, versengöc, igyenetlenec vattok, mint Luternec, Caluinusnac, es az többinec irasoc meg mutattyac]” (Monoszlói: 1588, 13). Elsewhere: “Calvin stands by his truth: Luther points in another direction: the Confessio Augustana here: Zwingli there: Osiander to the lawn [Caluinus az öue mellet all: Luter másfele mutat: Confessio Augustana imide: Zuinglius amoda: Oziander az gyöpre]” (Monoszlói: 1588, 25–26). 48 “Mi vgian egy, es azon regi Romai hitben élünc, es benne bekesegesec vagiunc” (Monoszlói: 1588, 7). 49 “Peechi Pispöc […] bochatasanac, es küldetesenec eredetit szinten az Apostolokhoz viheti, de te a’ tieddel touab semmikeppen nem mehecz Luter Martonnal, ott kel nyakanac szakadni hiuatalodnac” (Monoszlói: 1588, 4–5). 50 “Az papoknac (papoknac ám) Isten helye viselöinec es tartoinac, az közenseges attyafiac nem engednek” (Monoszlói: 1588, 1). 51 The main text speaks about a fable, supposedly by Aesop (The Wolf in Sheep’s Skin), the marginal note, on the other hand, leads us to Matt 7,15: “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” Citing the fable, he applies the moral to Dávid, personally: “The thing is that his external skin is a sheep’s skin, but his internal actions are those of a wolf: hence, you wear a sheep’s clothes among sheep, and you look like a sheep: but according to our lord Christ, you are a predator wolf, and you live by the earnings of the poor, simple sheep [Vgy vagyon (vgy mond) hogy az ö kilsö böre iuhnac böre, de az ü belsö chelekedete farkasnac teteméni: Azonképpen, iuhnac ruhaiat az iuhoc közöt viseled es iuhnac techel: de Christus vrunc mondasa szerint ragadozo farkas vagy, es az szegeny egigü iuhoknac keresmeniuel tengeted magadat]” (Monoszlói: 1588, 2). 52 “Az Isten töruenyenec szép igeieuel es sententiaiaual, vgy mint iuhoknac gyapiaiual, magokat be fedezic” (Monoszlói: 1588, 3).

Religious Polemics in Late Sixteenth Century Hungary

189

words and (leaving behind the true explanations) clothe them into heresy.”53 A recurrent topic is that of a negative tradition in church history when he explains that every heresy seceded from the Roman church, when “leaving behind the unity, they created a new religion for themselves.”54 He illustrates this viewpoint mentioning Luther, who had functioned as a friar before turning into a heretic. The phenomenon of disagreement is not a new one, in this context he refers to a biblical example: “God (as St Paul says) is the author of peace, not of confusion.”55 Ultimately, every heresy is “merely the invention of individual humans”,56 and every invention leads to the creation of “different” gods. Therefore heretics are idolaters. On the other hand, the Catholic, as a unified community, adheres to the God who has revealed himself. Monoszlói describes heresy as the breaker of this unity, when he suggests that the preachers of these errors sow discord from “the inside.”57 His rhetoric is in harmony with the medieval ideas on heresy and he uses several elements borrowed from there in a similar context.58

2.4

The Predecessor and His Successor: Connection Points

Besides the thematic and structural parallels between Telegdi’s and Monoszlói’s works their analogical argumentative methods are also worth mentioning. It is their common procedure to underpin their message with philological pedantry with biblical and patristic loci which confer authority to the argument. The power of these patristic references can also associate the views of Luther, Calvin and their fellow reformers with some of the ancient heresies. It can classify them with those who “seceded to invent a new explanation to the Scripture.”59 The question 53 “Meg nem tekentic belsö ertelmet, hanem meztelen veszic az igeket, mellyet (elhagyuan az igaz magyarazatot) tevelygessel ruhazzac” (Monoszlói: 1588, 127). 54 “Az eggyesseget hatra hagyuan, magoknac külömb vallast alkotnac” (Monoszlói: 1588, 243– 244). 55 “Az vr Isten (vgi mond azon Szent Pal) bekesegnec Istene nem haborusagnac” (Monoszlói: 1588, A1r). 56 “Chac magan valo embernec talalmanya” (Monoszlói: 1588, 5). 57 “Honnet jüue vallyon [ti. Luther]? Az Romai hittül: mi ellen tamada az többiuel? Romai hit ellen: kitül szakada ki? az Romai hitbül: szepelkeduen, faraduan, viaskodekis vele, de meg nem nyerhete, sem arthata neki, maganac penig kárt szerze, elis vesze mind vallasaual öszue [Where did Luther come from? From the Roman faith. Against what did he turn? The Roman faith. Whom did he split form? From the Roman faith: flattering, labouring, he struggled with it, but could not defeat it, nor could he harm it. He harmed instead himself, so he lost himself together with his religion]” (Monoszlói: 1588, 12). 58 See the volume about the formation of the views on heresy: Hunter/Laursen: 2005. 59 “Kic magoknac szakattac, hogy magoktul az irasnac magyarazatit hozzac” (Monoszlói: 1588, A2v).

190

Csilla Gábor

of true faith and Bible interpretation coincide at this point, and the connection between exegesis and orthodoxy becomes functional: thus, heresy is an individual, sometimes, arbitrary explanation of the Bible, as opposed to the interpretation codified by common knowledge and common interpretation. They rarely refer to scholastic authors by name; the Church Fathers, on the other hand, belonging to the traditional historical heritage common with the Protestants, are turned into backfiring weapons as lawmakers and judges, as the witnesses of the tradition understood in the Catholic manner (cf. Oláh: 2007, 329). Both Catholic authors use an argumentation chiselled by their dialectical training in order to show the trustworthiness of the theological views they defend. It is evident from the self-reflexive remarks occurring again and again in both writings that they are well aware of the power of erudition, precision and dialectical thinking. Their pedantry in form and thinking thus becomes a weapon in their hands as well. Monoszlói scorns his opponent every time he discovers some deficiency in the other’s work. However, the main points in these confrontations are not the other’s inaccuracy or lack of talent; the conclusion in every instance is simply that the opponent is an idolatrous, lying rascal. It is worth mentioning an entertaining example. The “dissenter” party, as Monoszlói calls János Dávid when quoting his statement that the Catholics are truly the ones who descended from the Devil, because “those who forbid food and marriage, put forth a satanic doctrine.”60 Monoszlói refers to this statement only to point out the deficiency of this argumentation instantly: “but he is quiet about what he should prove, how we forbid meal and marriage”61 (both citations: Monoszlói: 1588, 127). The next step is to draw his opponent’s missing conclusion. By doing so he also points out a self-contradiction: “if we forbid them, it seems useless to live with them and to consider the holy marriage a sacrament, which Ianos Dauid and his satanic master deny being a sacrament.”62 The nature of this prohibition is then explained in a specification: it refers to the prohibition of meat on Fridays and to the celibacy of priests. The correctness of these customs is proved in some length by the usual references to authorities. The aim of these practices according to the Catholic interpretation is also presented by using an appreciative terminology.63 The lengthy references cannot end without Mono60 “A’ kic az etelt, es az hazassagot tiltyac, ördögi tudomannyal jünec azoc”. 61 “De szinten azt halgattya el az mit bizonettani kellene, hogy tiltyuc mi az eltelt es az hazassagot”. 62 “Ha tiltyuc, heaba valo dolog hogy vele élunc, es szentsegnec tartyuc az szent hazassagot, mellyet Dauid Ianos, ördögi mesteruel tagad szentsegnec lenni” (Monoszlói: 1588, 128). 63 “I refrain from eating meat… in order not to increase the body’s sins when fattening the body itself with meat [Az hus eteltul meg tartoztatom… magam, a’ vegre, hogy netalantan midön az testet igen hizlalom hus ételel, egyetemben az testnec vetkeit fel ne neuellyem]” (Monoszlói: 1588, 135).

Religious Polemics in Late Sixteenth Century Hungary

191

szlói pointing out the true fault in the criticised method of argumentation by means of an example: “The consumption of meat is prohibited (he says) on Fridays, Saturdays and days of fasting (in order to ease the body), therefore, it is completely prohibited: a fine argument, I must say, among fools.”64 He also gives the Latin description of the error: “A dicto secundum quid, ad dictum simpliciter, non valet Argumentum” (Monoszlói: 1588, 139). This so-called secundum quid et simpliciter is a deductive fallacy: a hasty generalization, when conclusions are formulated on the basis of insufficient or not representative samples (cf. Walton: 1990, 113–154).

Closing Remarks Monoszlói’s Apologia, in form, is a public response to a – Lutheran? Calvinist? – writing that perhaps has never been published, and as such, it mirrors the interdenominational balance of power in Nagyszombat toward the end of the sixteenth century. It refutes the ideas of the founders of Reformation and their followers in a highly polemical voice, trying also to discuss and systematically cover the most burning issues of the polemics between Catholics and Protestants. The entire debate instructively illustrates the struggle of sixteenth century Hungarian authors with a vernacular theological terminology which was still in formation. The analysis, while following the argumentation strategies of the texts and the handling of the communication situations created by them, also observed the devices of self-interpretation and the way in which the authors placed their church and themselves in the Christian tradition. Based on Monoszlói’s reference, the present study tried to identify some characteristics of the missing link: the opus of János Dávid. The function of these texts deserves a prominent emphasis at the end of this analysis: the authors’ declared (and occasionally unspoken) intention with their writing was to construct a confessionally defined identity and to elaborate a precise, unequivocal theological terminology in the vernacular suited to mirror the nuances of the Latin terms.

64 “Tiltiac (vgy mond) penteken, szombaton es böit napokon (az testnec enyhetesere) az hus etelt, tahat telliesseggel tiltiac: bezzeg szép Argumentum az bolondoc közöt” (Monoszlói: 1588, 139).

192

Csilla Gábor

Bibliography Primary Sources Gyarmathi, Miklós (1598), Keresztyeni Felelet Monozloi Andras Vesperini Püspök, es Posoni Praepost könyve ellen, az mellyet irt, De Invocatione & Veneratione Sanctorum, az az, mint ö fordittya, Az Szentek hozzank valo segitsegekrül, valoba kedig, az mint egesz irasabul megh tetzik, az Szenteknek segitsegekrül, segitsegül hivasokrol, erdemes közbenjarasokrul, esedezesekrül, ket reszben osztattatot, es irattatot [Christian Answer against the Book of András Monoszlói, Bishop of Veszprém and Provost of Pozsony, Written De Invocatione & Veneratione Sanctorum, that is, in his Translation, about their Intercession and Our Invocation, in Fact however about their Effective Intercession, Divided and Written in Two Parts], Debrecen. Monoszlói, András (1588), Apologia. A közönseges kerestyen hit agazatinac es az anyaszentegyhaz bizonyos fö vallasinac oltalma David Ianos felelete ellen, ki ellenzette Telegdi Miklos peechi pispöc irasat, melyben nem akarta Luthernec vallasat venni [Apologia. Defence of the Branches f the Common Christian Faith and the Holy Mother Church’s Some Main Confessions against Ianos David’s Riposte, which Was Opposed to Miklos Telegdi, Bishop of Pécs’s Writing, in which he Was not Willing to Take on Luther’s Religion], Nagyszombat (today Trnava, Slovakia). Monoszlói, András (1589), De Invocatione et Veneratione Sanctorum. Az Szenteknec hozanc valo segetsegekrül hasznos Könyü, Az Keresztyeneknec igaz hitben valo epületekért [De Invocatione et Veneratione Sanctorum. A Useful Book about the Saints who Help Us. Written for the Edification of Christians in True Faith], Nagyszombat. Pázmány, Péter (2016), Keresztyéni felelet a megdücso˝ült szentek tiszteletirül, értünk való könyörgésekrül és segítségül hívásokrul (1607) [Christian Response about the Veneration of the Glorified Saints and their Intercession for Us], published and annotated by Alinka Ajkay, Budapest: Universitas. Telegdi, Miklós (1581), Egy nehany jeles okai mellyekert Telegdi Miklos pechi püspöc nem ueheti es nem akaria uenni Luter Martonnac es az ü maradekinac tudomanyat [Several Notable Reasons for which Telegdi Miklós, Bishop of Pécs Cannot and Will Not Accept the Knowledge of Martin Luther and His Descendants], Nagyszombat (Trnava, Slovakia).

Secondary Literature Bánfi, Szilvia/V. Ecsedy, Judit (2014), A magyarországi nyomdászat képes krónikája [An Illustrated Chronicle of the Hungarian Press], Budapest: Országos Széchényi Könyvtár, Balassi Kiadó. Bultmann, Christoph/Leppin, Volker/Lindner, Andreas ed. (2007), Luther und das monastische Erbe, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Fazekas, István (1998), Kísérlet a trentói zsinat határozatainak kihirdetésére Magyarországon 1564-ben [Attempts to Announce the Decrees of the Council of Trent in Hungary in 1564], in: Péter Tusor (ed.), R. Várkonyi Ágnes Emlékkönyv születésének 70.

Religious Polemics in Late Sixteenth Century Hungary

193

évfordulója ünnepére [Studies in Honour of Ágnes R. Várkonyi’s 70th Birthday], Budapest: ELTE BTK, 154–164. Granasztói, György (2004), A barokk gyo˝zelme Nagyszombatban: Tér és társadalom 1579–1711 [The Victory of the Baroque in Nagyszombat: Space and Society 1579–1711], Budapest: Akadémiai. Horváth, Csaba Péter (2013), Katolikus egyházi körkép Magyarországon Telegdi Miklós prédikációi tükrében [A Panorama of the Hungarian Catholic Church in the Mirror of Miklós Telegdi’s Sermons], in: Zsófia Tompa ed., Filológia és irodalom: Tanulmányok a Pázmány Péter Katolikus Egyetem Irodalomtudományi Doktori Iskolájának Kárpátmedencei MA- és PhD-hallgatók számára rendezett Filológia és Irodalom címu˝ konferenciáján elhangzott elo˝adásokból [Philology and Literature: Proceedings of the Conference Philology and Literature Organized for MA and PhD Students by the Doctoral School for Literary Studies of the Pázmány Péter Catholic University], Piliscsaba: PPKE BTK, 17–40. Hunter, Ian/Laursen, John Christian ed. (2005), Heresy in Transition: Transforming Ideas of Heresy in Medieval and Early Modern Europe, Aldershot: Ashgate. Iványi, Béla/Gárdonyi, Albert (1927), A Királyi Magyar Egyetemi Nyomda története 1577–1927 [The History of the Royal University Press 1577–1927], Budapest: Királyi Magyar Egyetemi Nyomda. Jauss, Hans Robert (1987), Das Religionsgespräch oder: The Last Things before the Last, in: Jauß, Hans Robert, Wege des Verstehens, München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 251–286. Kaufmann, Thomas (2006), Konfession und Kultur: lutherischer Protestantismus in der zweiten Hälfte des Reformationsjahrhunderts, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Käfer, István (1977), Az Egyetemi Nyomda négyszáz éve (1577–1977) [Four Hundred Years History of the Royal University Press (1577–1977)], Budapest: Magyar Helikon. Korondi, Ágnes (2016), Misztika a késo˝ középkori magyar nyelvu˝ kolostori kódexirodalomban: Misztikarecepció avagy irodalmi és kegyességi gyakorlat a késo˝ középkori magyar nyelvu˝ kolostori kódexek devocionális szövegeiben [Mysticism in the Late Medieval Hungarian-language Monastic Codices. Reception of Mysticism or Literary and Devotional Practice in the Devotional Texts of the Late Medieval Hungarian-language Monastic Codices], Cluj-Napoca: Egyetemi Mu˝hely Kiadó. Le Goff, Jacques (2015), Must We Divide History Into Periods?, New York: Columbia University Press. Leppin, Volker (2016), Die fremde Reformation. Luthers mystische Wurzeln, München: C.H. Beck. Oláh, Szabolcs (2007), A hitvita retorikája: nyilvánosság és önszemlélet [The Rhetorics of Polemics: Publicity and Selfinterpretation], in: Jankovits, László/Orlovszky, Géza (ed.), A magyar irodalom történetei: A kezdetekto˝l 1800-ig [The Histories of Hungarian Literature: From the Beginnings to 1800], Budapest: Gondolat, 323–336. Pete, József (2002), Telegdi Miklós pécsi püspök, az egyházfo˝ [Miklós Telegdi, Bishop of Pécs, the Church Leader], Pécsi Szemle 5, 4–19. Szinyei, Gerson (1884), A sárospataki fo˝iskolai könyvtár története [The History of the College Library of Sárospatak], Sárospatak: Stenfeld Ny. Tóth, István György (1999), A Trentói zsinat és Magyarország [The Council of Trent and Hungary], Vigilia 64, 339–347.

194

Csilla Gábor

Varga, Szabolcs (2014), A zágrábi egyházmegyei zsinatok a 16–17. században [Diocesan Councils in Zagreb in the 16–17th Centuries], in: Balogh, Margit/Varga, Szabolcs/Vértesi, Lázár (ed.), Katolikus zsinatok és nagygyu˝lések Magyarországban a 16–20. században [Catholic Councils and General Assemblies in Hungary in the 16–20th Centuries], Pécs, 131–149. Walton, Douglas N. (1990), Ignoring Qualifications (secundum quid) as a Subfallacy of Hasty Generalization, Logique & Analyse 129–130, 113–154. ˝ (1977a), Magyarországi protestáns egyháztörténeti lexikon [An EncycloZoványi, Jeno paedia of the Hungarian Protestant Church History], Budapest: Ref. Zsinati Iroda. Zoványi, Jeno˝ (1977b), A magyarországi protestantizmus 1565-to˝l 1600-ig [Hungarian Protestantism between 1565–1600], Budapest: Akadémiai.

Gábor Ittzés

A Plurality of Beginnings: Luther’s Disputation against Scholastic Theology in Its Historical Context

A Symbolic Beginning The symbolic starting date of the Reformation is marked by the publication of Luther’s Disputation on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences, better known as the Ninety-Five Theses, on 31 October 1517. The image of the reformer nailing the Theses to the door of Wittenberg’s Castle Church has taken deep roots and still holds sway in popular imagination.1 The historicity of the episode was challenged on multiple counts more than half a century ago, and the debate has not been definitively settled ever since.2 Early witnesses make no mention of the hammer blows, while the first written reference to the story is rather late and probably postdates Luther’s death. There 1 To cite some examples from a single country, where I am reasonably familiar with the available evidence, and a single (if exceptional) year, the national postal services in Hungary chose this scene as the only Lutheran motif for their series of three commemorative stamps issued in honour of the 500th anniversary of the beginning of the Reformation in 2017. Countless congregations re-lived the moment by nailing the Ninety-Five Theses to their own church door in the country (for the example of the city of Sopron, see Kiszögelték: 2017). The goal of the ReforMaraton 500 initiative was to bring Luther’s text from Wittenberg to Hungary on foot in October 2017 and, within 500 hours, nail a copy of it to the doors of 500 churches in the territory of the historical Hungarian Kingdom, now extending over several sovereign states in the Carpathian Basin (Bardócz: 2017). Once the jubilee year was over, retired Bishop Imre Szebik deemed it imperative to revisit this particular question and offer arguments in favour of the historicity of the thesis posting to readers of the Lutheran church’s weekly magazine (2018). 2 It is impossible even to scratch the surface of the vast literature on the topic here. Marc Lienhard noted, with some satirical overtones, that by the end of the 1960s the relevant body of literature had numbered over three hundred items (1983, 396). Suffice it to mention only a few contributions now. The controversy was effectively launched by Erwin Iserloh’s provocative thesis (1961; 1962; 1966), challenging the time-honoured consensus on the narrative of public nailing. After the first phase, extending over the 1960s, the debate was rekindled a decade ago, resulting in a major conference. The contributions are available in an edited volume (Ott/Treu: 2008), which provides a good introduction to the new phase of the controversy. In English, Volker Leppin and Timothy Wengert’s recent article (2015) offers a useful survey of both the central issues at stake and the relevant primary sources. – I am indebted to Alvin Powell of Harvard University for his invaluable help in accessing relevant scholarly literature.

196

Gábor Ittzés

are two candidates for the earliest mention of the episode in writing. One is Melanchthon’s preface to the second volume of Luther’s Latin writings in 1546 (CR 6, 161–162 [No. 3478, 1 Jun 1546]; cf. MBW 4277.11), and the other is Georg Rörer’s3 recently (in 2006) rediscovered note, which may or may not be older than Melanchthon’s (WA 48, Revisionsnachtrag, 116; cf. Michel: 2017; Ott/Treu: 2008). Whichever we consider the earliest surviving account, it does not come from an eyewitness as Melanchthon arrived in Wittenberg in 1518 and Rörer in 1522.4 Neither of them was present there in the autumn of 1517. We do have an eyewitness account as well. Georg Major was a choir boy in the Saxon capital in 1517,5 and he does mention the nailing of the Theses – but only after the publication of Melanchthon’s preface (cf. e. g. Leppin/Wengert: 2015, 374–375). That text, rather than his own personal recollections, may have been Major’s actual source. The university statutes required disputation announcements to be advertised on the doors of Wittenberg churches (in the plural), but only Rörer’s reference suggests compliance with that requirement. Both Melanchthon and Major offer versions that contradict it.6 It has also been suggested that even if the Theses were nailed to the church door, it was not the professor’s but the caretaker’s task to pick up a hammer and do the job (Iserloh: 1961, 307) – not to mention that he may be more likely to have used adhesives rather than nails to fix the document to the door (Jütte: 2015, 192–193). For such and similar reasons, this “founding myth” of the Reformation has been widely considered just that: a later symbolic story which might perhaps encapsulate something of the spirit of a new beginning but hardly its historical truth. In this paper, I want to look at the beginning of the Reformation and problematize a point-like understanding of it, however convenient that may be for celebratory purposes. The challenge I have just outlined to the conventional starting date of the grand movement of the sixteenth century is valid in my view: not, however, as definitive iconoclastic debunking but as a cautionary tale, reminding us of the uncertainties of this classic, and popular, story. We must be careful not to overstate the case. In his recollections Luther himself tied the

3 On Rörer (1492–1557), see ADB 53, 480–485; NDB 21, 735–736; BBKL 8, 523–526. 4 Interestingly, Rörer himself notes on the same page that contains the note on the 1517 episode that Melanchthon arrived in Wittenberg in 1518 (see a reprint of the page in Michel: 2017, 89). 5 On Major (1502–1574), see ADB 20, 109–111; NDB 15, 718–719; BBKL 14, 1224–1227. 6 Paradoxically, that may be held as an argument against the authenticity of Rörer’s account. He must have been familiar with the statues, which his wording echoes closely, and may have assumed that the original event had been in compliance with those. The roots of his story may be found in that familiarity and the related assumption rather than in some independently received oral tradition. Further, in another retelling of the episode Rörer also specifies the doors of the Castle Church as the place where Luther fixed his theses, that is, accepts Melanchthon’s version of the story as authoritative (WA DB 11.II, CXLI; cf. Leppin: 2008, 148–149).

A Plurality of Beginnings: Luther’s Disputation against Scholastic Theology

197

beginning of the Reformation to the indulgence controversy.7 Whether or not he (or the caretaker) nailed the Theses to the church door, and whether or not there was an early Wittenberg print edition,8 Luther “published” them in a very important sense on 31 October 1517. He distributed them by mail beyond his immediate university circle. The letter to Archbishop Albert of Mainz, still extant in the Royal Archives of Sweden, with which he enclosed a copy of the Ninety-Five Theses is a crucial document not only in the context of that day but also in the larger context of Luther’s development and emergence as a major reformer. It is the first autograph example of his signing his name in the widely known form as Luther rather than in the family’s traditional spelling as Luder, and the novel style, with its play on Greek ἐλεύθερος (‘free’), is widely recognised as a testimony to the newly found liberty of the Gospel (Moeller/Stackmann: 1981; Schilling: 2017; cf. AL 1:47–56). It would therefore not be wise to underestimate the significance of whatever happened on the last day of October 1517, although, and that is an important point, it took time to play itself out. For it was not so much the Ninety-Five Theses themselves (which spread chiefly in humanist-scholarly circles) but the vernacular Sermon on Indulgences and Grace of early 1518 (WA 1, 239–246; cf. AL 1, 57–65), covering similar grounds in a different genre, that earned Luther’s name fame (or notoriety) throughout the Empire.9 Some consider that the “true beginning” of the Reformation. As I have no new evidence to advance the debate about the precise events of 31 October 1517 and see no point in examining the known facts in more detail than I have already done, I will take a different approach. So far I have considered some events of the “first Reformation Day” and briefly sketched some of their consequences. That already gave us reason to note that the beginning was spread out and nailing down a day, pun intended, might raise more questions than it answers. Now I want to reverse our gaze and look at the events that led up to the Ninety-Five Theses.

7 See the dating of his letter to Nicolaus von Amsdorf on the tenth anniversary of the beginning of the indulgence controversy (WA Br 4, 275, 25–27, nr. 1164, 1 Nov 1527), his recollections in Against Hanswurst in 1541 (LW 41, 231–234) and his preface to the first volume of the Wittenberg edition of his Latin writings in 1545 (LW 34, 329–330). 8 Three early editions survive, from Leipzig, Nuremberg and Basel (the first two being single-leaf prints, only the Basel edition, published as a small booklet, is recorded in VD16, L 4457). Although widely hypothesised, we have no evidence of an editio princeps from Wittenberg. 9 Going through more than twenty editions by 1520 (VD16, L 6265–6268; 6270–6290), it was Luther’s first bestselling publication.

198

Gábor Ittzés

Background and Context Luther relocated to Wittenberg permanently in September 1511. At the instigation of his superiors, he earned a theological doctorate a year later, in October 1512. He began his teaching career as professor of Biblical studies the following academic year, in the winter semester of 1513–1514. He lectured on the Psalms and then on Romans, followed – roughly from the time of the publication of the Ninety-Five Theses, by lectures on Galatians.10 We need not engage the question of his Reformation breakthrough11 to note that his attitude towards scholasticism, the reigning theological method of his day, grew increasingly critical. From 1516 on, he was actively looking for ways to articulate his criticism. Meanwhile, in 1515, the sale of indulgences also got underway. It reached the vicinity of Wittenberg in early 1517. Luther first came into contact with the issue in his pastoral work, but he also reacted to it as a university professor and scholar. He began to study the relevant teachings of the church, which only whetted his criticism of contemporary theology. Both the Ninety-Five Theses and the Disputation against Scholastic Theology, with which I will be mostly concerned in the remainder of this paper, belong in this larger story. The first confrontation with scholastic theology took place on 25 September 1516, at the promotional disputation of Luther’s student, Bartholomäus Bernhardi.12 Atypically, the theses were formulated not by the professor but by the student himself. Bernhardi, however, relied heavily on his teacher for his text. In fact, we know from Emanuel Hirsch’s careful analysis one hundred years ago (1918) that the Quaestio de viribus et voluntate hominis sine gratia disputata (WA 1, 142–151), as this disputation is called, was not only generally based on Luther’s lectures on Romans but most of the actual formulations were taken from the class notes.13 The theses achieved some circulation as they were forwarded to Erfurt, Luther’s old university, by Nicolaus von Amsdorf. Johann Heinrich Feustking, Bernhardi’s successor as provost of Kemberg,14 may have been motivated by obvious partisan interests when he suggested in 1703 that his predecessor’s 10 On Luther’s early career as a university professor, see e. g. Wiczián: 1996. 11 For a fuller discussion of the topic, see Ittzés: 2013. 12 The reformer’s schoolmate and fellow Augustinian, Bernhardi (1487–1551) is largely forgotten today, but he was a major figure in the sixteenth century. He wrote church history when he became the first representative of the Wittenberg movement with a permanent position outside the city when he became provost in Kemberg. He is also recorded in the annals as the first cleric to get married. Lucas Cranach Jr. depicted him in a circle of influential reformers in more than one altarpiece. On Bernhardi, in addition to entries in major biographical dictionaries (e. g. ADB 2, 459–460 and BBKL 1, 539–540); see Feustking: 1703 and McEwan: 1986. 13 Further on the disputation, see Stange: 1904, 1–13. 14 For Feustking (1672–1713), see ADB 6, 755.

A Plurality of Beginnings: Luther’s Disputation against Scholastic Theology

199

“thesis defence […] was the first evangelical attack on the ‘six headed beast’ in Rome and thus the actual starting point of the Reformation” (Dixon: 2017, 547, quoting Feustking: 1703, 18). The proposal is nonetheless worth recording as an indicator of the significance of the event. The new approach, however, which showed Augustine’s strong influence, initially met with some resistance both in Wittenberg and in Erfurt. Despite the dubious reception, Luther managed, with great tact, to direct his colleagues’ attention to the church father so successfully that within six to twelve months several key players were won over to the emerging new way of doing theology.15 An indicator of that is that next spring Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt offered 151 theses for disputation (Karlstadt: 1952, 8*–37*). He had hoped that a panel of Saxon theologians, appointed by the Elector, would hold a multi-day disputation about them (Brecht: 1993, 170). The publication of his theses on 26 April coincided with the spring display of the Elector’s collection of relics: note the parallel with the events half a year later, when Luther published his theses on the eve of All Souls, when Wittenberg had the right to divulge plenary indulgence. Another parallel is the fact that most probably neither disputation took place, but the theses soon found their way to Nuremberg’s humanist circles. This time it was Luther himself who sent them on, with some enthusiastic comments, through Christoph Scheurl, a former professor of law in Wittenberg.16 While this document marks a decisive turning point in Karlstadt’s theology, he ultimately became a temporary “fellow traveler rather than a disciple of Luther in a strict sense” (Steinmetz: 2001, 125). Karlstadt’s own story, however, need not detain us here. Rather, we now arrive at the Disputation against Scholastic Theology in the early autumn of 1517 (LW 31, 3–16). The occasion was provided by Franz Günther’s17 promotional disputation on 4 September. Unlike in the former cases, this time the theses were written by Luther himself. The disputation did actually take place, but Luther did not stop there. On the very same day, he himself sent the theses to Erfurt. He not only asked for a swift response but also offered to discuss them either at the university or in his erstwhile community, the Augustinian monastery (WA Br 1, 103, 12–14 [No. 45, 4 Sep 1517, to Johannes Lang]). He forwarded the text to other destinations as well (WA Br 1, 106, 35–38 [No. 46, 11 Sep 1517, to Christoph Scheurl]; cf. WA Br 1, 107, 22–24 [No. 47, 30 Sep 1517, Christoph Scheurl to Luther]). He clearly wanted to address a wider academic audience with his questions probing the established way of doing theology. This

15 Further on the developments sketched here and in the following, see Brecht: 1993, 166–174. 16 On Scheurl (1481–1542), see ADB 31, 145–154; NDB 22, 715–716; BBKL 9, 178–185. 17 For bibliographical data on Günther (ca. 1512–1528), see Bräuer/Kobuch: 2010, 27–29.

200

Gábor Ittzés

invitation to discussion and debate remained largely unheeded. His next take, in two months’ time, produced all the more spectacular results. We can be certain that Luther had the Disputation against Scholastic Theology printed in Wittenberg because we have a single surviving copy of it.18 Even that went missing for centuries, until it was rediscovered in 1983.19 Although the disputation originally had no proper title, and it has gone under various names over the years, the title based on and expressive of the content and polemic nature of the text has become widely established (cf. Stange: 1904, 35). The text is truly a disputation against scholastic theology. Over and over again Luther clearly states whose opinion he is taking issue with. He often uses general terms such as offering arguments against “common knowledge,” “the scholastics,” “the philosophers,” or “the new dialecticians.”20 But equally frequently he identifies his opponents individually. His chief adversaries by name include John Duns Scotus (ca. 1266–1308), Cardinal Pierre d’Ailly (ca. 1350–1420), and Gabriel Biel (ca. 1420–1495).21 It is the last thinker that he attacks most (cf. Grane: 1962). These major medieval theologians hardly need special introduction, but it is of interest to see their significance for Luther, why the reformer singles them out for attention. Scotus becomes relevant for Luther’s discussion as the father of Scotism, a major school of thought in the via antiqua besides Thomism. In the mid-1510’s, the University of Wittenberg was characterised by moderate Scotism (Scheible: 1996, 130–131). In the case of Pierre d’Ailly, Luther does not concentrate on his role as chancellor of the University of Paris or as a leading figure of the conciliar movement and a father of the Council of Constance ending the Great Western Schism following the Avignon papacy. The reformer takes the cardinal to task for the same reason he attacked him for a few years earlier, in a sermon on Christmas Day 1514 (WA 1, 22, 7–11). In both cases, Luther is critical of d’Ailly’s application of Aristotelian logic in the context of the doctrine of the Trinity (Saak: 2017, 128– 153; esp. 139–141). Gabriel Biel, often regarded as “the last of the Schoolmen”, 18 The fact that any copy survived at all may ultimately be a sign of the text’s perceived significance (or of the care Wittenberg University took of printed theses), see Moeller: 2008, 18– 24 on the proportion of lost disputation broadsheets. 19 Herzog August Bibliothek, Wolfenbüttel, 434.11 Theol. 2º, cf. www.hab.de/ausstellungen/ reformstau/kapitel03/bild04.html (accessed 15 Feb 2018). The editio princeps lists 100 theses, but it was not yet known at the time when the influential Weimar Edition of the disputation was prepared (1883), which thus ended up with a count of 97 items. This numbering was taken over in most later editions, including English translations as well. I will follow that convention and cite the thesis numbers on the basis of LW 31. 20 E. g. theses 1; 31; 39; 46, respectively. To simplify notes, references will be provided to thesis numbers only (with page numbers omitted). Citations are taken from LW 31 throughout. 21 See, e. g., theses 6; 10; 13 for Scotus; theses 47–48; 57; 61 for d’Ailly; theses 6; 10; 13; 20; 23; 54– 55; 57; 90–93 for Biel.

A Plurality of Beginnings: Luther’s Disputation against Scholastic Theology

201

studied at Erfurt, just like later Luther himself, and was a prominent representative of the Ockhamist via moderna that was the hallmark of that institution of higher learning. Luther’s theological formation was influenced by the same school of thought, nominalism.22 Of the three thinkers, Biel is closest to the reformer chronologically, geographically, culturally, and in terms of his personal history. When Luther challenges him, he is wrestling with his own intellectual heritage. He is turning against the tradition that has nurtured him, trying to establish his own independence. Nor is he unsuccessful in this attempt. In some ways, here we clearly witness the reformer’s theological coming of age. Whatever his biographical relevance for Luther’s development, Biel is, ultimately, not the reformer’s main adversary in the Disputation against Scholastic Theology. A much more formidable figure casts a long shadow over Luther’s manifesto of theological independence. His program is directed primarily against Aristotle, who is his chief intellectual antagonist throughout the formative years of the Reformation.23 This is what the reformer has to say about “the philosopher”: “Briefly, the whole of Aristotle is to theology as darkness is to light. This in opposition to the scholastics” (thesis 50). This is clear, to the point, provocative – and programmatic. In fact, it is the pithy conclusion of a longer section which includes other tough comments: “Virtually, the entire Ethics of Aristotle is the worst enemy of grace. […] It is an error to say that no man can become a theologian without Aristotle. […] Indeed, no one can become a theologian unless he becomes one without Aristotle” (theses 41; 43–44). This is the heart of Luther’s point. As the numbering shows, we are close to the centre of the Disputation. To appreciate his overall argument and achievement, we must now take a more systematic look at the whole text. As we do that, I will argue that the Disputation against Scholastic Theology is not merely a negative critique of a received tradition but also contains a clear promise of a new theological program. As such, it is certainly a worthy candidate for the starting point of a new era in the history of theology.

22 On Biel and nominalism, see Oberman: 2000 and, more recently, Kärkkäinen: 2017. 23 Cf. e. g. theses 29–38 of the Heidelberg Disputation (1518; LW 31, 41–42), the 25th proposal for reform in the address To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation (1520; LW 44, 200–201), or the sermon on the Gospel for Epiphany in the Christmas Postils (1522; LW 52, 166–167). Literature on Luther and Aristotle has grown extensive, and we have come to appreciate the complexity of the issue. In addition to Saak’s recent contribution, already cited, I only mention Theodor Dieter’s magisterial monograph on the topic (2001).

202

Gábor Ittzés

Structure and Themes After a preamble24 which specifies the administrative details of the occasion for which the theses are presented,25 the Disputation against Scholastic Theology begins with a strong claim: “To say that Augustine exaggerates in speaking against heretics is to say that Augustine tells lies almost everywhere” (thesis 1). The main thrust of Luther’s whole program is so to alter the way of doing theology that Augustine replaces Aristotle as its central secondary authority. He is out to win this battle so he deploys heavy artillery from the beginning, but he does so very cleverly and tactfully. He saves the direct attack on Aristotle until much later and starts, instead, by emphasising Augustine’s authority, who was, after all, the most influential Latin church father. Despite the apparently provocative opening salvo the next theses make it clear that at this early stage Luther is more trying to establish a safe starting point than to launch a direct attack. He is in fact seeking common ground with the audience against the “Pelagians and all heretics” (thesis 2). In thesis 3 he makes a shrewd generalising move, connecting the Bishop of Hippo to a much wider pool of authorities. To challenge Augustine’s Anti-Pelagian work “is the same as making sport of the authority of all doctors of theology.” With this, Luther has his bases covered. The reformer’s new program is effectively launched with thesis 4. At the heart of it is a fundamental reconsideration of theological anthropology and ethics:26 “It is therefore true that man, being a bad tree, can only will and do evil” (cf. Matt 7:17–18). The foundational thesis of Luther’s ethics is articulated here (cf. LW 31, 361 [The Freedom of a Christian, 1520]), albeit only in a negative way (bad tree – bad fruit). The rest of the text will explore what follows from this starting point, which is, needless to say, deeply anchored in New Testament theology. Luther organises his arguments under two larger headings, each half subdivided into smaller units. The first series of arguments (theses 5–53) focuses on the will, its nature and freedom, outside the state of grace, while the second (theses 54–95) explores the will in the context of grace. The keywords will, nature, and (the lack of) freedom are introduced in the first subunit. It offers not only a reformulation of the initial claim in thesis 10 (“One must concede that the will is not free to strive toward whatever is declared good”), but here we can also detect the theological principle of the bondage of the will, which foreshadows Luther’s later famous debate with Erasmus on that very question (LW 33). 24 The heading is omitted from LW 31, but WA 1 has it and so does the original Wittenberg placard. 25 “Ad subscriptas conclusions respondebit Magister Franciscus Guntherus Nordhusensis pro Biblia, Praesidente Reverendo patre Martino Luthero Augustiniano, Sacrae Theologiae Vuittenberg. Decano, loco et tempore statuendis” (WA 1, 224, 1–6). 26 Cf. Carl Stange’s characterization of Luther’s early disputations as ethical (1904, V–XI).

A Plurality of Beginnings: Luther’s Disputation against Scholastic Theology

203

The core of the next section (theses 13–22) is thesis 17: “Man is by nature unable to want God to be God. Indeed, he himself wants to be God, and does not want God to be God.” God’s godhead is a central topic in Luther’s theology.27 The first commandment is not specifically discussed here, but we can surely detect the germ of Luther’s later theological insistence. He will indefatigably place our inability to keep the first commandment at the centre of his analysis of our entire sinful existence. This is the essence of sin; that we have other gods and we do not let God be God. In the next step (theses 24–34), Luther destroys a bulwark of nominalism, which was to ward off the accusation of Pelagianism. Facere quod in se est (‘to do what is in one’): that was one of the most important principles of late medieval theology (cf. Oberman: 1992, 96–103; 2000, 131–145; esp. 132–134). One cannot merit salvation, but if one does everything one can (meritum de congruo), God will reward one’s efforts with an infusion of justifying grace, which will help one perform meritorious acts (meritum de condigno), necessary for salvation. That is how grace perfects nature. Luther, however, mercilessly attacks this understanding: “This is false, that doing all that one is able to do can remove the obstacles to grace” (thesis 33). And: “On the part of man […] nothing precedes grace except indisposition and even rebellion against grace” (thesis 30). Instead, Luther here represents a strongly predestinarian view, which is not to be misconstrued, however. Without touching upon or implying double predestination, which is the theologically far thornier issue, he simply claims that God’s eternal election, rather than anything rooted in human freedom, is “[t]he best and infallible preparation for grace and the sole means of obtaining grace” (thesis 29). Again, the thesis is articulated with a critical edge in a polemic context, but it embodies the seeds of his life-long emphasis on extra nos, informing virtually every part of his theological thinking from the doctrine of justification to sacramental theology to pastoral counsel. This is followed by the section against Aristotle (theses 35–53), the conclusion and central tenets of which we have already seen. Luther attacks Aristotelian philosophy because it clashes head-on with reality as he sees it. As thesis 40 puts it: “We do not become righteous by doing righteous deeds but, having been made righteous, we do righteous deeds” [emphasis added by author]. This, again, is a variation on the main theme of the disputation. It may contain, in an embryonic form, the promise of the new (Reformation) teaching about justification, but Luther does not develop it in any constructive way here. Instead, the thesis serves to introduce, and lay the foundations for, the frontal dismissal of Aristotle by turning the theological application of Aristotelian virtue ethics on its head. If 27 Recall Philip S. Watson’s classic book, Let God Be God: An Interpretation of the Theology of Martin Luther (1938).

204

Gábor Ittzés

Luther is right, medieval theology is shaken to its very foundation as he proceeds to demonstrate with the confrontational formulations that follow (and were discussed above). Before he is done with Aristotle, the reformer also demolishes the demonstrative force of logic in matters of faith.28 With this, he concludes the first part of the discussion, focusing on the will outside the state of grace. The keywords of the second half of the Disputation against Scholastic Theology include grace, law, and will. Luther begins with a discussion of the first two terms (theses 54–69), arguing for an understanding of grace, on the one hand, as a powerful and active presence, and on the other hand, as the only condition that enables the fulfilment of the law. “Therefore it is impossible to fulfil the law in any way without the grace of God” (thesis 68). Luther then explores how the will functions in the context of law and grace (theses 70–89). His starting point is the antagonism of the will to the law, based on the law’s character of demanding. “Law and will are two implacable foes without the grace of God” (thesis 71). Contrasting outward conformity with and inward fulfilment of the law, Luther argues that only the former is possible without grace and the Holy Spirit. All natural inclination to fulfil the law is tainted with selfishness and is, consequently, sinful in the sight of God. From the opposition between law and will and the goodness of the law follows the corruption of natural will, which thus cannot perform truly righteous acts only sinful ones – which is keeping in line with the central tenet of the whole text. First Luther analysed the will outside the state of grace, and found a dead end. There is no passage to grace from that direction. In the second half of the theses he examined the role of grace in how the will relates to the law and in how the law can be kept. “Grace as a mediator is necessary to reconcile the law with the will,” he summarises this part (thesis 89). It is true that we do not yet see a clearly articulated doctrine of justification here, but that might in part be due to the polemical genre and the overall critical orientation of the text. The stage nevertheless seems to be set for the appearance of the new teaching. What the last section contains is by no means a clear articulation of what might be called Reformation theology. Luther offers, instead, a set of arguments on the topic of love (theses 90–95). A few things are worth noting, however. First, opponents (especially Biel) are again referenced with great frequency. “The grace of God is given for the purpose of directing the will, lest it err even in loving God. In opposition to Gabriel” (thesis 90). This return of names, coupled with a 28 The late medieval crisis of logic was, of course, not Luther’s invention, and, as Eric Leland Saak has recently argued (2017, 138–148), he in fact took a moderate position in the debate. He upheld the universal validity of Aristotelian formal logic and did not even deny its pertinence to theology but drastically reinterpreted its usefulness. In divine matters logic has no demonstrative force (in this context, certainty is reserved for faith) but can serve an educational purpose.

A Plurality of Beginnings: Luther’s Disputation against Scholastic Theology

205

recurrence of some earlier themes, gives a flavour of summary recapitulation to this part. But the final theses also crown the overall argument by intensifying the divine claim on the self. “To love God is at the same time to hate oneself and to know nothing but God. We must make our will conform in every respect to the will of God […]; So that we not only will what God wills, but also ought to will whatever God wills” (theses 95–97). In some ways, this brings the argument full circle because with the stakes raised so high, the will can certainly not perform satisfactorily on its own. Luther then adds, perhaps tongue in cheek, that “[i]n these statements [… he has] said nothing that is not in agreement with the Catholic church and the teachers of the church.” Despite the final claim, Luther’s attack on scholastic theology is quite comprehensive. He challenges both the premises and the methods of theologising, and he also undercuts many of the most important authorities. The arguments are largely drawn from the fields of theological anthropology and ethics, but the implications are wider and concern the whole of the theological enterprise. Luther is well versed in but thoroughly unhappy with the tradition he inherited and calls for a complete renewal of the discipline.

Conclusion The reformer thus presents a vast theological program in the Disputation against Scholastic Theology. As the title suggests, the critical edge is foremost in his presentation, but the theses also include numerous key elements of constructive Reformation thought. They may have taken some time to work out, but in the long run many of them became an integral part of Reformation teaching. The theological program and import of this text is surely comparable to that of the Ninety-Five Theses. It might even be greater in the sense that Luther later rejected fewer of these theses than of the 95. The same holds true for the presuppositions held in this disputation (as compared with those of the October Theses). We have also seen that Luther presented his contentious claims to a wider academic public and was prepared to discuss them in circles that extended far beyond Wittenberg University. He was eager to challenge the conventions and established methods of his age and to offer a way forward. And yet, it was not the attack on scholastic theology but the attack on the indulgence business that came to be seen as marking the beginning of a new era. Whatever the theological significance of the Disputation against Scholastic Theology, and however hard Luther tried to bring it to the attention of his colleagues, it did not create a substantial echo in its own day – unlike the Ninety-Five Theses two months later. That outcome was by no means monocausal. Factors contributing to the recognition of the Disputation on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences included

206

Gábor Ittzés

not only its inherent value but also such external factors as its impact and the response it elicited. Its contemporary success was surely due, in part, to the issues it raised. An attack on the sale of indulgences, a religious practice, touched a much more sensitive nerve and resonated with many more people than a criticism of the presuppositions, commitments, and methods of academic theology. Further, by the time Luther attacked the sale of indulgences, he had been actively seeking a way to critically challenge the established theology of his own day for some time. While some elements of his censure, such as its anti-Aristotelian edge, remained quite stable, he also tried to get a grip on the problem from various angles, and his efforts were to bear fruit sooner or later. Seen in that light, the beginning of the Reformation is itself more of a process than a point-like event. I am certainly not arguing that we should do away with 31 October as Reformation Day.29 It is not without reason that the eve of All Souls came to be seen as marking the start of the Reformation.30 As I have shown, Luther himself connected that day with the indulgence controversy and the controversy, in turn, with the birth of the reform movement.31 I am suggesting, however, that celebrating Reformation Day should not mislead us into understanding the beginning of the Reformation as a single event that can be narrowed down to a single day, let alone a half-hour episode. Rather, pars pro toto, we should take the thesisposting as a shorthand for a much longer process that extends, minimally, from the Bernhardi disputation to the success of the Sermon on Indulgences and Grace and, possibly, even further.32 As I have argued, the Disputation against Scholastic Theology marks a crucial stage in that process. It is a significant document of Luther’s intellectual coming of age, which deserves to be considered his theological “masterpiece” in the sense of a work an apprentice was required to submit to his guild to attain the status of a master craftsman. It is perhaps fitting, then, that his next achievement came to be considered the first work of a new era.

Bibliography Primary Sources Bräuer, Siegfried/Manfred Kobuch (ed.) (2010), Thomas-Müntzer-Ausgabe, vol. 2: Briefwechsel, Leipzig: EVA. 29 Further on this question, see my recent paper on the emergence of 31 October as Reformation Day (Ittzés: 2017). 30 On the enduring significance of the narrative of the thesis posting, see Dixon: 2017. 31 Cf. n. 7, above. 32 Cf. the rather long list of events up to Luther’s stand before the Diet of Worms vying for the honour of the Reformation’s point of origin (Dixon: 2017, 547–548; Wendebourg: 2014, 263).

A Plurality of Beginnings: Luther’s Disputation against Scholastic Theology

207

Feustking, Johann Heinrich (1703), Historia Clerogamiae Evangelicae, sive de primo sacerdote marito Lutherano, Bartholomaeo Bernardi, schediasma Historico-Theologicum, Wittenberg: Gottfried Zimmermann. Karlstadt, Andreas Bodenstein von (1952), Karlstadt und Augustin: Der Kommentar des Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt zu Augustins Schrift De spiritu et litera: Einführung und Text, Ernst Kähler (ed.), Halle: Niemeyer.

Secondary Literature Bardócz, Csaba (2017), Reformaraton 500 – Elhozzuk a 95 tételt, http://reformacio2017. hu/2017/06/19/reformaraton-500-elhozzuk-a-95-tetelt/, accessed 12 Feb 2018. Brecht, Martin (1993), Martin Luther: His Road to Reformation, 1483–1521, James L. Schaaf (trans.), Minneapolis: Fortress. Dieter, Theodor (2001), Der junge Luther und Aristoteles. Eine historisch-systematische Untersuchung zum Verhältnis von Theologie und Philosophie, Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. Dixon, C. Scott (2017), Luther’s Ninety-Five Theses and the Origins of the Reformation Narrative, in: EHR 132 [No. 556], 533–569. Grane, Leif (1962), Contra Gabrielem: Luthers Auseinandersetzung mit Gabriel Biel in der Disputatio contra scholasticam theologiam 1517, Copenhagen: Gyldendal. Hirsch, Emanuel (1918), Randglossen zu Luther-Texten: Zu Luthers frühen Disputationen, in: ThStKr 91, 108–137. Iserloh, Erwin (1961), Luthers Thesenanschlag: Tatsache oder Legende?, in: TThZ 70, 303–312. Iserloh, Erwin (1962), Luthers Thesenanschlag: Tatsache oder Legende?, Wiesbaden: Steiner. Iserloh, Erwin (1966), Luther zwischen Reform und Reformation. Der Thesenanschlag fand nicht statt, Münster: Aschendorff. Ittzés, Gábor (2013), Megtért-e Luther 1517 elo˝tt? A “toronyélmény” mint reformációtörténeti probléma, in: Déri Balázs et al. (ed.), Conversio, Budapest: ELTE BTK VTK, 369–380. Ittzés, Gábor (2017), Reformáció és ünnep: Hogyan lett október 31-e a reformáció kezdetének évfordulója?, in: Credo 23,3–4, 47–63. Jütte, Daniel (2015), The Strait Gate: Thresholds and Power in Western History, New Haven/London: Yale UP. Kärkkäinen, Pekka (2017), Article “Nominalism and the Via Moderna in Luther’s Theological Work”, in: Oxford Research Encyclopadia of Religion online, http:// oxfordindex.oup.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199340378.013.266, accessed 20 Feb 2018. Kiszögelték (2017) Kiszögeltek Luther Márton 95 tételét a templomkapura, www. evangelikus.hu/95-tetel-sopronban, accessed 12 Feb 2018. Leppin, Volker (2008), Geburtswehen und Geburt einer Legende: Zu Rörers Notiz vom Thesenanschlag, in: Joachim Ott/Martin Treu (ed.), Luthers Thesenanschlag – Faktum oder Fiktion, Leipzig: EVA, 145–150.

208

Gábor Ittzés

Leppin, Volker/Timothy J. Wengert (2015), Sources for and against the Posting of the Ninety-Five Theses, in: LuthQ 29, 373–398. Lienhard, Marc (1983), Martin Luther: Un temps, une vie, un message, Paris: Centurion/ Geneva: Labor et Fides. McEwan, Dorothea (1986), Das Wirken des Vorarlberger Reformators Bartholomäus Bernhardi: Der Lutherfreund und einer der ersten verheirateten Priester der Lutheraner kommt zu Wort, Dornbirn: Voralberger. Michel, Stefan (2017), Rörer-Notiz, in: Luther! 95 Schätze – 95 Menschen: Begleitbuch zur nationalen Sonderausstellung, München: Hirmer, 88–89. Moeller, Bernd (2008), Thesenanschläge, in: Joachim Ott/Martin Treu (ed.), Luthers Thesenanschlag – Faktum oder Fiktion, Leipzig: EVA, 9–31. Moeller, Bernd/Karl Stackmann (1981), Luder – Luther – Eleutherius: Erwägungen zu Luthers Namen, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Oberman, Heiko A. (1992), The Dawn of the Reformation: Essays in Late Medieval and Early Reformation Thought, repr. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans. Oberman, Heiko A. (2000), The Harvest of Medieval Theology: Gabriel Biel and Late Medieval Nominalism, 3rd ed., Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Ott, Joachim/Treu, Martin (ed.) (2008), Luthers Thesenanschlag – Faktum oder Fiktion, Leipzig: EVA. Saak, Eric Leland (2017), Luther and the Reformation of the Later Middle Ages, Cambridge: Cambridge UP. Scheible, Heinz (1996), Aristoteles und die Wittenberger Universitätsreform: Zum Quellenwert von Lutherbriefen, in: Michael Bayer/Günther Wartenberg (ed.), Humanismus und Wittenberger Reformation: Festgabe anläßlich des 500. Geburtstages des Praeceptor Germaniae Philipp Melanchthon am 16. Februar 1997, Leipzig: EVA, 123– 144; reprinted in: Heinz Scheible (2010), Aufsätze zu Melanchthon, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 125–151. Schilling, Johannes (2017), Martin Luther, Brief an den Erzbischof von Mainz, Albrecht von Brandenburg, in: Luther! 95 Schätze – 95 Menschen: Begleitbuch zur nationalen Sonderausstellung, München: Hirmer, 90–91. Stange, Carl, ed. (1904), Die ältesten ethischen Disputationen Luthers, Leipzig: Deichert. Steinmetz, David (2001), Reformers in the Wings: From Geiler von Kaysersberg to Theodore Beza, 2nd ed., Oxford: Oxford UP. Stolt, Birgit (2000), Martin Luthers Rhetorik des Herzens, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Szebik, Imre (2018), Kiszögezte-e Luther a 95 tételt?, in: Evangélikus Élet 83:5–6 (11 Feb), 12. Watson, Philip S. (1938), Let God Be God: An Interpretation of the Theology of Martin Luther, London: Epworth. Wendebourg, Dorothea (2014), Vergangene Reformationsjubiläen: Ein Rückblick im Vorfeld von 2017, in: Heinz Schilling (ed.), Der Reformator Martin Luther 2017: Eine wissenschaftliche und gedenkpolitische Bestandsaufnahme, Berlin: de Gruyter Oldenbourg, 261–281. Wiczián, Dezso˝ (1996), Luther mint professzor: Professzori munkája a wittenbergi egyetemen különösen elso˝ elo˝adásai alapján, reprint, Budapest: Magyarországi Luther Szövetség.

Balázs Dávid Magyar

Calvinus Theologus Legislator: Theological and Ethical Implications of the Genevan Moral Laws Related to Gambling, Dancing, and Dress Fashions in Calvin’s Works

Introduction The fascinating heritage of John Calvin is much more than just his Magnum Opus, the Institutes. However, the first generation of Calvin scholars argued that the reformer was a man of only one book (cf. Doumergue: 1910, 1), still new ways of research offer fresh and deep insights into the theology of Calvin. So, by no means is it surprising to start with the thesis: Calvin’s ideas cannot be understood only from his Institutes. All of his works – the Institutes, commentaries, sermons, letters, and theological-judicial treatises – can pave the way for the right understanding of his social and ethical legacy (cf. Parker: 1992, 62−75; Steinmetz: 1995, vii.; Holder: 2006, 75; Peres: 2009, 49–78). This paper intends to scrutinize Calvin’s social thoughts, exploring the theological and ethical implications of the Genevan moral laws in his sermons and commentaries, since these edicts were generally drafted by the direct wish and advice of Calvin and his colleagues in order to renew the moral life of Genevans (Benedict: 2009, 1−14; Magyar: 2016, 375−386). In this conference paper I would like to contribute to the work of Walther Köhler, André Biéler, Robert M. Kingdon, Willam G. Naphy, and Scott Manetsch who were taking pains to discover the very legacy of Calvin from the viewpoint of social ethics.

1.

Calvin as Mediator Between Church and Political Authority

Thirty years ago, Robert M. Kingdon, the highly esteemed expert of French-Swiss Protestantism presented a paper on the third International Congress on Calvin Research in Debrecen, Hungary. In his lecture, the professor depicted Calvin as a learned, qualified jurist of the Genevan Republic, who was taking pains to draft the Constitution of the City-State of Geneva in 1543 (Kingdon: 1988, 225−233; cf. Strom: 2011, 222−239; Witte: 2010, 34−58). Nevertheless, on the basis of his last words to the magistrates of the Republic, Calvin considered himself a jurist and a

210

Balázs Dávid Magyar

spiritual leader of the Genevans. Due to this deep-seated calling, according to Karl Barth, Calvin devoted himself wholeheartedly “to building up the City of God, the New Jerusalem in Geneva” (1993, 153). In order to reshape and to make sacred again the ordinary life of the people (Manetsch: 2006, 274−314; Manetsch: 2010, 283−307), Calvin established a brand new alliance between the local magistrates and the most “feared institution” of the Genevan Church and State, namely the Consistory (Köhler: 1942, 505−562; Kingdon: 2012, 101−130). So Calvin as a pastor and moderator of the Consistory was not ignorant of the high numbers of moral-sexual crimes of his congregation that made him constantly anxious especially (Magyar: 2012, 248−269; Magyar: 2012, 376−393; Magyar: 2013, 256–282, when he was presenting himself on the weekly gatherings of the Small Council (Witte: 2013, 245−280).

2.

Moral Laws as Signposts of Calvin’s Social Thoughts

During the second period of Calvin’s service in Geneva (1541−1564), first of all from theological and ethical reasons the reformer maintained an open war against every kind of dishonesty1 against God and His commandments. It goes without saying that Calvin did not bequeath completely elaborated, systematized social ethics (cf. Biéler: 2005, 3−11; Fazakas: 2009, 104–139; Fazakas: 2009, 91 −105), still it is evident from the Calvini Opera Omnia that he was trying to summarize his social thoughts under the title De Luxu. However, this draft remained unfinished; Ford Lewis Battles convincingly argued that Calvin probably in 1546/47 directed this short treatise against the moral laxity of Libertines and the luxury and license of Genevans (1965, 182−202). The brief examination of this forgotten fragment of Calvin’s heritage makes it clear that Calvin’s heart was full of tribulation (Bouwsma: 1988, 32−48), inward grief and sorrow because of several scandalous crimes of Libertines (Collins: 1968; Van Veen: 2005, 21−32). According to the reformer, these men ruined themselves in dancing, feasting, excessive dress fashions, and gambling. Doing this, they shamelessly irritated Calvin and undermined the generous work of the Consistory. So Calvin claimed: insulting the poor they dress harmlessly and in the many-colored cloak they demonstrate all their pomp, and their “delightful foods force already glutted men to eat”, and their “feasts serve not their stomachs but their ambition.” Furthermore, Libertines are unable to realize, “the talk of a dissolute man is broken 1 Due to the risk for family and social life, the gambling was forbidden as early as in 1490. In spite of numerous regulations, gambling in secret was so popular at Geneva, therefore fifty years later limited gambling was permitted only for adults while forbidden to schoolchildren and to those who are unable to conduct themselves (Höpfl: 1982, 197, Naphy: 2003, 30; 109; 179; Magyar: 2018).

Calvinus Theologus Legislator: Theological and Ethical Implications

211

and uncontrolled. Do not think a mind temperate when speech gushes forth. These effeminate and dissolute fellows […] are ashamed to speak, and jolly well ought to be ashamed!” (Battles: 1965, 192–194) In order that the vices of individuals do not breed public errors, Calvin raised the question: “What should I do?” (cf. Wolf: 2010, 233−252). After this, he answered immediately with great relevance saying: “I should conspire against public morals. I should proclaim a war against both fatherland and the present age” (Battles: 1965, 193). Due to his deep seated passion for the majesty of God (Duchrow: 2009, 58−97), Calvin asked the members of the Small Council (Marshall: 2010, 146−161) to put firm restrictions on dancing, gambling, singing, dress, luxury and license in Geneva (Pfisterer: 1957, 81−85; Staedtke: 1969, 92−93).

3.

Calvin and the Small Council Against Gambling

According to the Registers of the Consistory and the Collection of Genevan Edicts, the so-called Source du Droit, after the return of Calvin from Strasbourg, the Small Council continued to struggle with the burning issue of gambling (Rivoire/ Berchem: 1927, 304−305). It was from criminal reasons, when in December 20, 1542, Françoys Deponte supped together with Denis Hugues, Aymé Bochu, Françoys Camparet, Felix Amary, and Pierre Veyron. After dinner Deponte suggested a game in order to decide who would pay for the meal. Having lost, Bochu accused Deponte of not being worthy, struck him with his sword, killing him (Kingdon: 2000, 160−161, fn. 606). This terrible and sorrowful2 case caused so many extraordinary sessions in the operation of the Small Council and the Consistory that made Calvin quite uneasy and troubled (Beam: 2012, 197−219). So, this is why Pál Pruzsinszky, the great Hungarian researcher convincingly cited Calvin’s own words, saying “I am not hostile to any variety of harmless pastimes, furthermore I find nothing exceptionable in the game of cards either, but I am aware of the fire, confusion, discord, and quarrels in the homes which can easily happen when we devote ourselves to games” (1912, 39). In the midst of his struggle for the Genevan consolidation, Calvin preaching on Deut 7:22−26 on August 14, 1555, said: Men perceive that gaming and playing are dangerous, or rather mischievous, yea and that they serve to destroy men’s houses and to make havoc of all, they be as a seed or root of all ungodliness, […] they give occasion of strife, debate, quarrels, swearing, and all manner of naughtiness […] they mean to make Christians become brute beasts.3

2 Related to Calvin’s views on sorrow see: Keck: 2005, 201−218. 3 Sermon on Deut 7:22−26 (Serm. 57), in: CO 26, 560; translation: Calvin: 1983a, 343.

212

Balázs Dávid Magyar

After four years, in 1559 Calvin was preaching on Eph 4:11−14 in this way: We know that they which make a business of that game must furnish themselves with a store of tricks, for there is neither honor nor honesty in it. It is true, […] all dicer are deceivers, insomuch that the simplest of them longs for the cunning to beguile his opponent. It is true that all are not so skilled in sleight-of-hand play as to rob others of their goods, but for all that, we see it is the general and universal manner of that game to be full of guile.4

To be sure, gambling was a complex ethical, social, and criminal problem for Calvin (Freudenberg: 2009, 153−172), since men perceive not all these teachings, neither do they make account to keep themselves from games. So, Calvin believed, if players do not receive the warning that God placed before them by the Holy Scripture, they are worthy to tumble into the pit of Satan to break their necks together with lives of their family.5

4.

Calvin and the Small Council Against Dancing

Examination of Les Sources du Droit du Canton de Genève before the time of Calvin reveals, dancing was banned firstly during the wars of independence, since the magistrates probably thought: it easily causes tumults and makes it difficult for guards to hear the approach of a possible enemy (Innes: 1983, 276). Dances were outlawed again in 1539, except when a wedding was celebrated (Rivoire/ Berchem: 1927, vol. 2, 347−349). But finally, they were utterly banned in 1546 (Rivoire/Berchem: 1927, vol. 2, 478−482). Nevertheless, it seems, these strict restrictions remained ineffective, because the reformer had to direct two sermons against this issue. The first was delivered on 1 Tim 2:1−2 from 1554 when Calvin was saying: We had a few laws and statutes, whereby men were kept a little in order, but nowadays, men make but scoffing from them. There was a law made that there should be no dancing. The reason was good, for it serves no purpose, but to be a provocation to whoredom. […] we shall say that it is, but a knack of bawdry, and if dances be licensed, it opens the door as a direct way for Satan. […] we have seen some punished for this, but nowadays men make but scoffing from them.6

Nevertheless due to the numerous “secret dances” in Geneva, Calvin had to preach on the seventh commandment (Deut 5:18) in this way:

4 Sermon on Eph 4:11−14 (Serm. 26), in: CO 51, 575−576; translation: Calvin: 1987, 386. 5 Cf. Sermon on Eph 4:11−14 (Serm. 26) in: CO 51, 576; translation: Calvin: 1987, 386. 6 Sermon on 1 Tim 2:1−2 (Serm. 12) in: CO 53, 143; translation: Calvin: 1983b, 144−145.

Calvinus Theologus Legislator: Theological and Ethical Implications

213

Those who would like to have dances and lewd conduct […] is that so bad? That is the same as if they openly wanted to mock God and close their eyes to him in order to insult him and nevertheless wonder if they have done anything wrong. Now we know quite well that dancing only serves as a preamble to fornication, for in particular it opens the door to Satan and cries for him to come in and enter with enthusiasm.7

In short, dancing was first of all an ethical problem for Calvin, since he believed such “evil conducts” are quite contrary to God’s commandments, and to the good order of a Christian commonwealth (Belt: 2013, 83−94). This is why he was trying to apologize for the wicked act of his honored biblical “idol”, King David, who was dancing in front of the ark, saying: When we are told that David danced before the ark, let us note that it was in order that he and all the faithful at that time, instead of rejoicing in dissolute and lascivious dances, might exercise themselves in the praises of God and place all their joy in that […] it was done in accordance with the times, which we must always remember.8

So it was not without good reason that Calvin believed, people should learn that the imitation of some biblical idols in case of moral manners is not safe, when we think that we may indiscriminately adopt whatever they did. Therefore by no means it is possible to eliminate the justification of the right pastoral teaching and care.

5.

Calvin and the Small Council Against Dissolute Dress Fashions

However, the first strict moral codes concerning dresses, jewels and accessories were adopted by the magistrates after the era of consolidation of Genevan reformation in 1558 (Rivoire/Berchem: 1927, vol. 3, 86), it does not mean that Calvin wanted to neglect the problems with excessive dresses and questions of moderate use of fashion. In order that the poor were not insulted, shamed or frustrated, Calvin as early as 1548 commented on Tit 2:3 with these words: We very frequently see, that females advanced in age either continue to dress with the lightness of youthful years, or have something superstitious in their apparel, and seldom hit the golden mean. Paul wished to guard against both extremes, by allowing them to follow a course that is agreeable both to outward propriety and to religion […] to give evidence, by their very dress that they are holy and godly women.9

7 Sermon on Deut 5:18 (Serm. 9) in: CO 26, 341; translation: Calvin: 2011, 176−177. 8 Sermon on 2 Sam 6:12–19 (Serm. 18) in: SC, vol. 1.3, 155; translation: Calvin: 1992, 267. 9 Commentary on Tit 2:3 in: CTS, vol 21.3, 311.

214

Balázs Dávid Magyar

After this, Calvin continued to examine the subject of clothing again in 1548 when he was writing on 1Tim 2:9: Paul wishes that […] dresses should be regulated by modesty and sobriety; for luxury and immoderate expense arise from a desire to make a display either for the sake of pride or of departure from chastity. […] Magistrates may indeed make laws, […] but godly teachers […] ought always to keep in view the end of lawful use.10

According to Calvin’s words, to be sure, he considered himself as an advocate behind the scenes of local political administration, and as a “godly teacher”, who knew the moral limits well on the basis of the Holy Bible (García/Alonso: 2011, 1– 19; Johnson: 2012, 143–160). A few years later, explaining Gen 24:22 (1554) Calvin used the same argument against luxury and license in dress fashions: Now we know how highly displeasing to God is not only pomp and ambition in adorning the body, but all kind of luxury. In order to free the heart from inward cupidity, he condemns that immoderate and superfluous splendor, which contains within itself many allurements to vice. […] God forbids not every kind of ornament, […] the women, however, who desire to shine in gold, seek in Rebekah a pretext for their corruption. […] But, they are deceived, who imagine that the examples of the saints can sanction them in opposition to common law of God.11

In the second part of the same year, Calvin was preaching on 1 Tim 2:9−11, and hinted again to the responsibility of the political authority in order to prevent the immoderate use of dresses: For women have been so intemperate in all ages, and so burning and set on fire with this wicked affection and appetite, that rulers have constrained penalties and punishments to remedy this matter with all.12

After these opening remarks, in connection with excessive clothing and fashion the Genevan reformer emphasized: women are thus set on fire: for they think, they can never be brave enough, unless they have too much. And therefore when women deck and trim themselves according to their fancy, they cannot, but pass measure, they cannot but be gorgeous and full of vanity, carried away with ambition and vain glory. And therefore St Paul showed on the contrary side, whatsoever women have to deck themselves with all, which is more than enough, is a disguising which God condemns.13

Nevertheless, by no means was it the “high point” of his sermon, because he went further confessing: 10 11 12 13

Commentary on 1 Tim 2:9 in: CTS, vol 21.4, 66; cf. Biéler: 1964, 69−74. Commentary on Gen 24:22 in: CO 23, 335; CTS vol. 1.2, 21. Sermon on 1 Tim 2:9−11 (Serm. 17) in: CO 53, 201; translation: Calvin: 1983b, 202. Sermon on 1 Tim 2:9−11 (Serm. 17) in: CO 53, 201; translation: Calvin: 1983b, 202; cf. Commentary on Deut 22:12.

Calvinus Theologus Legislator: Theological and Ethical Implications

215

Women apparel themselves as harlots […] we see there come out a woman like a painted idol, all our age is full of colors, there is nothing but laying on of gold, perukes and false hairs […] as she ready to say: ‘I will show myself here as a false bitch, I will be impudent and shameless, and show my filthiness to all the world.’ […] If women observe this rule of modesty, they would not be adorned with gold as they are, they would not have their heads colored,14 […] but they fight against all modesty and honesty (CO 8, 204).

At the same time, in his closing comments, Calvin was following a very rare style of his preaching, because he made a direct, personal reference to himself as well: Let us not think that men and women differ herein, that women learn: no man may think himself exempt from this rule. As for example, it is my office to teach, but is it therefore to be said, that I must not also learn as well as the other? I am not exempt from the common sort of men, as who would say, I should not be Jesus Christ’s Disciple […] if at any time I go up into the pulpit, to teach the doctrine of salvation, if for my part, I do not profit by it?! (CO 8, 210).

Two years later, when Calvin was preaching on Deut 22:5−8, he took up the question of dress again and he was clarifying: If women be dissolute, what a thing is that? They forget their natures for women ought to be modest and they open a gap to all whoredom. […] God intends to say as well: that man ought not to put on women’s apparel, nor women be clothed in men’s apparel. For it is good reason that there should be a difference between men and women. […] Then is it as a witness that we walk as before God, when we regard a kind of honesty in our apparel.15

However, the main problem for Calvin was not the nature of fashion in general, but the immoral effects of dress combined with pride and exhibitionist manners which can easily corrupt the family and marital life of the faithful Disciples of Christ (cf. Sewell: 2012, 173−200). This is why Calvin was stressing in his sermon on the seventh commandment (1556) that: For when men and women dress in such way as to seduce each other and to entice each other into adultery, are they not all the more engaged in prostitution? It is true that they argue: ‘Oh, I haven’t committed adultery!’ But in so doing they reveal that they are a prey to Satan and would like to entrap others as much as possible. [Doing so] they make room for Satan.16

14 Cf. “a youth wearing excessively wanton and dainty clothing that in does not matter in what member he is unchaste […] God requires modesty in us […] so let neither your heart burn with wicked lust within, nor your eyes wantonly run into corrupt desires, nor your body bedecked with bawdy ornaments.” (Calvin, Institutes, 2.8.44; translation: Calvin: 1960, vol. 1, 407−408. 15 Sermon on Deut 22:5−8 (Serm. 126) in: CO 28, 17−18; translation: Calvin: 1983a, 773. 16 Sermon on Deut 5:18 (Serm. 9) in: CO 26, 340; translation: Calvin: 2011, 176.

216

Balázs Dávid Magyar

Some of Calvin’s last words concerning the excessiveness in dress were published in his famous sermon on Eph 5:3–5 when he was criticizing the reprobate and unreasonable fashion trends in Geneva, and those persons were puffed up with pride because of their general outfit: Nowadays a harlot will act like a chaste woman, as though she were a mirror of all decency, and yet at the same time she will be ready to tilt like a virago against all those that come to engage with her in lewd and wicked exchanges. […] Some appear in new dresses and trinkets, so that every day some new disguise is seen. They are decked in peacock-tail fashion, so that a man cannot pass within three foot of them without feeling, as it were, a windmill sail swirling by him.17

Unfortunately, on the basis of the Registers of the Consistory, it seems that the moral and sumptuary laws concerning fashion remained ineffective, therefore in 1560 and 1564 the magistrates gave force to new ordinances limiting the use of dresses, bracelets, silver belts, golden ornaments, and rings (Rivoire/Berchem: 1927, vol. 3, 102−116). But these regulations remarkably divided public opinion, which caused an open “debate” on dresses and fashion trends between Calvin and the wealthy citizens. So, it is not without good reason to note that in order to defend Calvin against his enemies, the famous Genevan authoress, Marie Dentière (1495−1561) published a short treatise on this matter, entitled Preface to a Sermon by John Calvin in 1561. This work intended to criticize immodesty and extravagance in clothing and to warn the faithful to be vigilant (Dentière: 2004, 90 −94). Finally, John Calvin summarized his evaluations on dress in his commentary on Deut 22,12 saying: excessive and dissolute clothing repudiates from God, who does not tolerate the several kinds of impurity, by which He reminds us of honesty and modesty in our outward matters.18

Summary This conference paper intended to point out that John Calvin’s theological and spiritual heritage could not be reduced only to his Opus Magnum, the Institutes. To be sure, Calvin’s pastoral calling made him first of all an intellectual and 17 Sermon on Eph 5:3–5 (Serm. 34) in: CO 51, 674; Calvin: 1987, 497. 18 “This also was a part of chastity, to have regard for modesty in dress; for since the thongs were the outer covering, a door was thus opened to many improprieties, if the outer garments were not closed, and many, […] would have abused this, if it had been allowed, as an incentive to licentiousness; for we see that many rush into such excesses of lasciviousness, as to glory in their shame. […] But elect people should cultivate decency, and diligently guard against everything immodest, it is abundantly clear that not only were adulteries condemned, but whatever is repugnant to purity and chastity” (Commentary on Deut 22:12, in: CO 24, 668; CTS, vol. 3.1, 109).

Calvinus Theologus Legislator: Theological and Ethical Implications

217

ethical reformer of his times. In order to renew the social, political, and economic life of the people of Geneva, he delivered sermons and through the Consistory, he transformed the Genevan social and family life. Building on his detailed sermons and biblical commentaries, Calvin could put pressure on local magistrates to outlaw dishonest dances, dress fashions, songs, and games. In order that the poor were not insulted, shamed, or frustrated, Calvin and his colleagues implemented their moral convictions through the several sumptuary laws and edicts of the Small Council. So they put into action a comprehensive new social theology and ethics that made these social questions and problems essential concerns for both church and state in Geneva.

Bibliography Primary Sources Calvin, John (1960), Institutes of the Christian Religion, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, Vol. I. Calvin, John (1992), Sermons on 2 Samuel, vol. 1, Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust. Calvin, John (1983a), Sermons on Deuteronomy, Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust. Calvin, John (1983b), Sermons on the Epistles to Timothy & Titus, Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust. Calvin, John (1987), Sermons on the Epistle to the Ephesians, Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust. Calvin, John (2011), Sermons on the Ten Commandments, Pelham: Solid Ground Christian Books. Dentière, Marie (2004), Preface to a Sermon by John Calvin, in: Mary B. McKinley, (ed.), Marie Dentière: Epistle to Marguerite de Navarre and Preface to a Sermon by John Calvin, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 90–94. Rivoire, Emile/Berchem, Victor van (1927), Les Sources du Droit du Canton de Genève, vol. 2, Arau: H. R. Sauerlander.

Secondary Literature Barth, Karl (1993), Die Theologie Calvins, Zurich: Theologischer Verlag. Battles, Ford Lewis (1965), Against Luxury and License in Geneva. A Forgotten Fragment of Calvin, in: Interp. 19, 182–202. Beam, Sara (2012), Rites of Torture in Reformation Geneva, in: Graeme Murdock et al. (ed.), Ritual and Violence: Natalie Zemon Davis and Early Modern France, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 197–219.

218

Balázs Dávid Magyar

Belt, Henk van den (2013), The Exegetical Background of Calvin’s View of the Government, in: Henk van den Belt (ed.), Restoration through Redemption: John Calvin Revisited, Leiden: Brill, 83–94. Benedict, Philip (2009), Calvin and the Transformation of Geneva, in: Martin Ernst Hirzel/Martin Sallmann (ed.), John Calvin’s Impact on Church and Society 1509−2009, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1–14. Biéler, André (2005), Calvin’s Economic and Social Thought, Geneva: World Alliance of Reformed Churches. Biéler, André (1964), Mann und Frau in Calvins Ethik, in: Der Deutsche Hugenott, 28.1, 69–74. Bouwsma, William G. (1988), John Calvin. A Sixteenth Century Portrait, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Collins, William Ross (1968), Calvin and the Libertines of Geneva, Toronto: Clarke, Irwin & Company. Doumergue, Emil (1910), Jean Calvin. Les hommes et les choses de son temps, vol. 4, Lausanne: Georges Bridel & Cie Éditeurs. Duchrow, Ulrich (2009), Calvin’s Understanding of Society and Economy, ThCu 6, 58– 97. Fazakas, Sándor (2009), Kálvin szociáletikája, in: Sándor Fazakas (ed.), Kálvin ido˝szeru˝sége. Tanulmányok Kálvin János teológiájának maradandó értékeiro˝l és magyarországi hatásáról, Budapest: Kálvin Kiadó, 104–139. Fazakas, Sándor (2009), “Mert a szegény nem fogy el a földro˝l…” Kálvin társadalmi etikájának kialakulása és gyakorlati jelento˝sége, Studia Theologica Debrecinesis 2, 91– 105. Freudenberg, Matthias (2009), Economic and Social Ethics in the Work of John Calvin, in: Allan Boesak/Len Hansen (ed.), Globalisation: The Politics of Empire, Justice and the Life of Faith, Stellenbosch: Sun Press, 153–172. García-Alonso, Marta (2011), Biblical Law as the Source of Morality in Calvin, in: History of Political Thought 32, 1–19. Holder, Richard Ward (2006), John Calvin and the Grounding of Interpretation. Calvin’s First Commentaries, Leiden: Brill Publishing. Höpfl, Harro (1982), The Christian Polity of John Calvin, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Innes, William C. (1983), Social Concern in Calvin’s Geneva, Alliston Park: Pickwick Publication. Johnson, Thomas K. (2012), Law and Gospel: The Hermeneutical/Homiletical Key to Reformation Theology and Ethics, in: Evangelical Review of Theology 36, 143–160. Keck, David (2005), Sorrow and Worship in Calvin’s Geneva: their place in Family History, in: Marc R. Forster/Benjamin J. Kaplan (ed.), Piety and Family in Early Modern Europe, Aldershot: Ashgate, 201–218. Kingdon, Robert McCune (1988), Calvinus Legislator: The 1543 ‘Constitution’ of the City-State of Geneva, in: Wilhelm H. Neuser (ed.), Calvinus Servus Christi, Budapest: Presseabreilung des Ráday-Kollegiums, 225–233. Kingdon, Robert McCune (2012), Reforming Geneva. Discipline, Faith, and Anger in Calvin’s Geneva, Genève: Librairie Droz.

Calvinus Theologus Legislator: Theological and Ethical Implications

219

Kingdon, Robert McCune (2000), Registers of the Consistory of Geneva in the Time of Calvin 1542–1544, vol. 1, Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Co. Köhler, Walter (1942), Zürcher Ehegericht und Genfer Konsistorium, vol. 2, Leipzig: Verlag von M. Heinsius Nachfolger, 505–562. Magyar, Balázs Dávid (2013), “Honora patrem tuum et matrem” Kálvin János neveléstanának újszövetségi vonatkozásai, különös tekintettel a keresztyén házasság és házirend kérdésére. Betekintés Kálvin János társadalmi nevelésének rendszerébe és legfontosabb forrásaiba, in: Református Szemle 3, 256–282. Magyar, Balázs Dávid (2012), “Isten nevének virágoznia kell nemzedékro˝l-nemzedékre!” Kálvin János társadalmi nevelése és a genfi vallástanítás. Betekintés Kálvin János társadalmi nevelésének rendszerébe és legfontosabb forrásaiba, in: Református Szemle 4, 376–393. Magyar, Balázs Dávid (2018), Kálvin János a házasságról, családról és szexualitásról, Budapest: Universitas Kiadó. Magyar, Balázs Dávid (2012), “Krisztus legkiválóbb iskolája” Kálvin János társadalmi nevelése igehirdetéseiben és konzisztóriumi munkájában. Betekintés Kálvin János társadalmi nevelésének rendszerébe és legfontosabb forrásaiba, in: Református Szemle 3. 248–269. Magyar, Balázs Dávid (2016), “The City of Geneva Ought to Be as a Burning Lamp to Give Light” Portraits of Genevan Family Life in John Calvin’s Sermons on the Ephesians, in: Arnold Huijgen/Herman J. Selderhuis (ed.), Calvinus Pastor Ecclesiae. Papers of the Eleventh International Congress on Calvin Research, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 375–386. Manetsch, Scott (2010), Holy Terror or Pastoral Care? Church discipline in Calvin’s Geneva, 1542−1696, in: Herman J. Selderhuis (ed.), Calvin. Saint or Sinner? Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 283–307. Manetsch, Scott (2006), Pastoral care east of Eden: the Consistory of Geneva, 1568–82, in: ChH 75, 274–314. Marshall, Paul (2010), Calvin, Politics, and Political Science, in: David W. Hall/Marvin Padgett (ed.), Calvin and Culture: Exploring a Worldview, Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed, 146–161. Naphy, William G. (2003), Calvin and the Consolidation of Genevan Reformation, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. Parker, T.H.L. (1992), Calvin the Biblical Expositor, in: Richard C. Gamble (ed.), Calvin and Hermeneutics, Articles on Calvin and Calvinism 6, New York: Garland Publishing, 62–75. Peres, Imre (2009), Kálvin írásértelmezése és írásmagyarázatai, in: Sándor Fazakas (ed.), Kálvin ido˝szeru˝sége. Tanulmányok Kálvin János teológiájának maradandó értékeiro˝l és magyarországi hatásáról. Budapest: Kálvin Kiadó, 49–78. Pfisterer, Ernst (1957): Calvins Wirken in Genf, Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag. Pruzsinszky, Pál (1912), Kálvin János, vol. 2, Pápa: A Magyar Református Egyház kiadása. Sewell, Alida Leni (2012), Calvin, the Body, and Sexuality, Amsterdam: VU University Press. Staedtke, Joachim (1969), Johannes Calvin. Erkenntnis und Gestaltung, Göttingen: Musterschmidt Verlag.

220

Balázs Dávid Magyar

Steinmetz, David C. (1995), Calvin in Context, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Strom, Christoph (2011), Calvin und die reformierten Juristen des 17. Jahrhunderts, in: Marco Hofheinz/Wolfgang Lienemann/Martin Sallmann (ed.), Calvins Erbe: Beiträge zur Wirkungsgeschichte Johannes Calvins, Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 222– 239. Veen, Mirjam van (2005), “Supporters of the Devil” Calvin’s Image of the Libertines, in: CTJ 40, 21–32. Witte, John (2010), Calvin the Lawyer, in: David W. Hall (ed.), Tributes to John Calvin: A Celebration of His Quincentenary, Phillipsburgh: Presbitarian and Reformed, 34–58. Witte, John (2013), Church, State, and Family in John Calvin’s Geneva: Domestic Disputes and Sex Crimes in Geneva’s Consistory and Council, in: Per Andersen et al. (ed.), Law and Disputing in the Middle Ages. Proceedings of the Ninth Carlsberg Academy Conference on Medieval Legal History 2012, Copenhagen: DJØF, 245–280. Wolf, Erik (2010): Theologie und Sozialordnung bei Calvin. In: Herman J. Selderhuis (ed.), Johannes Calvin: Neue Wege der Forschung, Darmstadt: WBG, 233–252.

Tomoji Odori

The European Reformation and the Christian Minority in Early Modern Japan

Introduction The Protestant Reformation triggered radical nonconformist religious movements such as Anabaptism on one hand and the Catholic renewal on the other. These in turn brought about fervent missionary activity both in Europe and overseas. All these phenomena are essential components of the Reformation or Reformations, which were global in scale. In Japan, prized mission field of the Jesuit order, from Francis Xavier’s (d. 1552) arrival in 1549 to the great expulsion of 1614, the Christian community grew and developed over several generations, its population peaking at about 400,000. Although European Jesuits were not eager to inform the Japanese about Reformation controversies, Japanese Christians nevertheless became indirectly involved in historical events in Europe. For example, a 1591 Japanese manuscript of Gospel readings has been shown to derive from the Vatable Bible published under the sponsorship of Philip II at Salamanca in 1584. This Bible juxtaposes the text of the Vulgate with a ‘new’ Latin translation which, although not labeled as such, is actually the Zurich Bible translated by the circle of Zwingli: it has been anonymized to pass the Inquisition. In this way, Zwinglian interpretations reached Japan and were read in the Jesuit College there (Schwemmer: 2017, 57– 59). However, this and other Japanese Christian literature did not attract notice among literary circles, among other reasons because the total suppression of Christianity soon began. Those who recanted their faith had to sign written oaths not to return to the forbidden religion, although many broke their oaths and were accepted again to the congregation. These hidden Christians (Japanese: Kakure Kirishitan) developed their own confessional characteristics during their long period of clandestine activity. First, they maintained strong ties of brotherly union, as lay leaders secretly performed select rituals such as baptism and the Lord’s Supper, recited essential prayers and Biblical passages, while reluctantly visiting temples of the de facto state religion, Buddhism. Second, they readmitted

222

Tomoji Odori

repentant apostates if they made ‘contrition’ (Japanese: konchirisan) and asked for forgiveness of their sins. Nevertheless, they encouraged martyrdom, insisting that Christians must not fight their persecutors but rather willingly accept death. Moreover, they believed in asking God to have mercy on their enemies. Finally, they practiced customs such as faith healing and incantations against evil spirits. In fact, there are some striking similarities between early modern Japanese hidden Christians and the European Anabaptists who lived in the Swiss and German countryside, surviving harsh persecution for centuries – although these two communities had no contact with each other. The present study examines these two communities in parallel in order to determine what led them to similar mindsets and practices despite their different confessional origins and cultural backgrounds.

From First Contact to State-Driven Catholic ‘Confessionalization’ Forty years after the arrival of Xavier, there were already about 200 Christian communities all over Japan. The rapid growth of Christianity was mainly caused by the religious policies of the daimyo or local lords persuaded by the missionaries. It was Portuguese trade, especially in firearms, that facilitated missionary work by making some local lords want to promote and monopolize this trade in their domains. They granted license to European missionaries to preach in their domains because they saw that this would get them preferential treatment, and many Christian daimyo forced their subjects to convert for the same reason (Boxer: 1951, 37f; Kawamura: 2014, 368; 386). ¯ mura Sumitada Bartolomeu (d. 1587), the first Christian daiFor instance, O myo to convert, set fire to Buddhist temples, destroyed their graveyards, and drove away unrepentant priests, converting tens of thousands of his subjects to Christianity in 1574 at the suggestion of the Jesuits. People who refused conversion were expelled from his domain in Nagasaki.1 The European missionaries appointed Japanese lay brothers (Japanese: iruman) and catechists (Japanese: do¯juku) who taught the principles of the Christian religion to new converts, pointing out the “errors” of the Buddhist and Shinto¯ creeds. They translated Catholic catechetical and devotional treatises into Japanese and printed them using a movable metal-type printing press imported from Europe (Boxer: 1951, 1 At that time, Francisco Cabral (d. 1609) was the Mission Superior of Japan (from 1570 to 1581). Unlike his predecessors, Xavier and Cosme de Torres (d. 1570), Cabral was opposed to any “accommodation” to Japanese culture and promoted forced mass conversion. In the province ¯ ita Prefecture), the Jesuit persecution of Buddhism was far more violent. of Bungo (modern O ¯ tomo So¯rin Yoshishige Francisco (d. 1587) not only destroyed thousands of Buddhist O temples but also executed a number of Buddhist priests. Cf. Kato¯: 1996, 293–327.

The European Reformation and the Christian Minority in Early Modern Japan

223

220f; 188–198). This was nothing other than state-driven christianization and ‘confessionalization’ based on the Catholic faith, although there were also many who willingly accepted the new beliefs on their own judgment. Protestant merchants from England and the Netherlands also arrived in Japan at the turn of the seventeenth century, establishing rival trading posts in the small port of Hirado, concentrating on business, and staying away from missionary activity. This ultimately made them more attractive to the Japanese authorities, and in this way, Japan became yet another front in the European wars of religion, from piracy to industrial espionage to outright warfare (Takase: 2002, 3–87). When the English arrived in 1613, their leader gave to the inner circle of the shogun fliers celebrating the foiling of the Gunpowder Plot and the expulsion of the Jesuits from England in 1602, and the timing suggests that this was the final impetus for the great expulsion of 1614. In 1615, the English provided the heavy artillery which brought down Osaka Castle with some Japanese Catholics inside (Screech: 2012, 26–29, 16–19). Finally, the Dutch were reviled in some Catholic circles for centuries because, at the command of the Japanese authorities, they bombarded Hara Castle in Shimabara, helping to defeat the last active Christian rebels in Japan in 1637.2 Shogunal officials even suggested that the Dutch might help them to invade the Spanish colonial city of Manila (Clulow: 2014, 125–128; 122). In at least the diplomatic sense, Japan became a Protestant country at this time.

Prohibition of Christianity and Magisterial Buddhist Institutionalization Toyotomi Hideyoshi, who largely completed the unification of Japan in the 1580s, began to persecute Christians, issuing an order to banish foreign missionaries in 1587, and in response, the Jesuit leader Gaspar Coelho (d. 1590) briefly tried to call for a joint Iberian invasion force from the Philippines and 2 The rebels were dissatisfied with overtaxation and suffering from the effects of famine. Most of them were Christians. They destroyed Buddhist temples, killed Buddhist priests, and compelled non-Christians in nearby villages to convert to their religion. Their leader was Amakusa Shiro¯ who was said to be a Zen-nin or a Good Man from Heaven in the Last Days. The Shimabara Rebellion was a chiliastic violent movement. The uprising ended in 1638, and about 37,000 rebels were executed. Chisato Kanda points out that the rebellious Christians were doing the same thing as belligerent Christian daimyo and the rebellion has similarities to the ‘Anabaptist Kingdom’ of Münster 1534–1535. The destruction of Buddhist temples and the forcible mass conversion belonged to the violent project of the state-driven ‘confessionalization’ of the Japanese Christian daimyo. Shimabara was once ruled by the Christian daimyo Arima Harunobu Protasio (d. 1612), whose successor was transferred in 1614 to another domain. Cf. Kanda: 2010, 181; 186.

224

Tomoji Odori

Macau to Nagasaki (Takase: 1977, 85). Hideyoshi’s ban was first seriously enforced in February 5, 1597, when twenty-six Christians were crucified on Nishizaka Hill in Nagasaki. Since then, about 40,000 martyrs lost their lives during 250 years of persecution. Fumi-e or trampling on a wooden icon of a crucifix or Virgin Mary was introduced around 1629 in Nagasaki to detect Christians. Those who recanted and denied their faith signed a written oath called Nanban Seishi not to return to the forbidden religion. In this way they were much like the Swiss Anabaptists, who promised under duress to attend the state church of the Reformed religion and not to return to their secret congregation (Cieslik: 1999, 214– 216; Scheidegger: 2007, 114f). After the establishment and consolidation of the Tokugawa shogunate in the first half of the seventeenth century, a centralized religious census (Japanese: shu¯mon-aratame) and compulsory temple registration (Japanese: tera-uke) were introduced all over the country, while Christianity was strictly forbidden through a series of the shogunal edicts from 1612 to 1614.3 The shogunate, located in Edo, was trying to promote magisterial Buddhist institutionalization or Buddhist confessionalization, nationwide.4 In this period, many a temple was established to meet the new ‘demand’. Before the tera-uke system was introduced, there were a lot of Japanese people who didn’t belong to a Buddhist temple as danka (parishioners) and preferred local Shinto¯ practices and rituals, though it was taught by intellectuals and politicians that Shinto¯, Confucianism, and Buddhism were ultimately identical (Kuroda: 1993, 24–27). The new Buddhist parishioners listened to sermons at their temple, attended memorial services for deceased ancestors, and recited Buddhist prayers like the nenbutsu at home and at their

3 Buddhist temples all over Japan were ordered to keep danka-register or shu¯mon-ninbetsu-cho¯ not only for their lay members but also for the Shinto¯ priests. The hidden Christians also became Buddhist parishioners. Buddhist priests were to monitor suspected Christians and other dangerous popular religious sects. Cf. Ohashi: 2014, 60–96; Kataoka: 1974, 228–238. 4 This process, however, should not be overestimated. The tera-uke system was not always strict and there were many families whose members (e. g. a husband and his wife) belonged to different temples of different denominations: cf. Houzawa: 2013, 68–77. Other components of Japan’s early modern centralization were the transition from medieval Japanese-style to early modern Western-style warfare employing lower-ranking samurai or ashigaru troops by Oda Nobunaga (in the 1575 Battle of Nagashino) after the introduction of matchlock arquebus to Japan by the Portuguese in 1543, the Imperial Regent Hideyoshi’s Prohibition against ownership of swords and firearms by farmers to separate samurai and farmers (katana-gari, 1588), nationwide Land Survey to assess the taxes due from each village (kenchi, 1582ff), and finally the Tokugawa baku-han system (1603–1868) in which the central government bakufu headed by shogun controlled the local domains (han) ruled by daimyo. Intensification of political domination, social and religious controls were under way even though they were not always sufficient. One can thus recognize the similarity between East and West. And some Japanese scholars point out that the “Iberian Impact” drove Japanese rulers to “modernize” their government, warfare, social relations and economy. Cf. Takano: 2013, 1–15.

The European Reformation and the Christian Minority in Early Modern Japan

225

own meeting houses called do¯jo¯ if circumstances allowed. Pilgrimages to remote sacred sites were also recommended (Murai: 2002, 59–78). However, this Buddhist ‘confessionalization’ didn’t exclude various religious practices outside the temple, except for forbidden religions such as Christianity and defiant Buddhist streams such as the theocratic Ikko¯ sect, a driving force of large-scale uprisings in the sixteenth century. The religious policy of the shogunate was essentially “multi-confessional” and “tolerant” to some extent as Engelbert Kaempfer, German physician and botanist who lived in Japan from 1690 to 1692, closely observed (Bodart-Bailey: 1999, 103). This looseness of religious control was one of the important factors that maintained the Pax Tokugawa for more than two centuries (Parker: 2013, 404–506). However, the Christian minority was the one group that would not be at peace until the beginning of the Meiji Era, when the prohibition of Christianity was lifted.5

Clandestine Activities of the Hidden Christians 1.

Brotherly Congregation of Simple Devotion

Lay Japanese Christians had always formed confraternities to perform the works of mercy: helping the poor, holding respectful funerals regardless of social rank, and caring for the sick and the wounded. These confraternities were managed by lay leaders, often village elders. Congregations that went underground kept this character of the confraternity with a horizontal organizational structure. Lay leaders like the jihi-yaku (mercy executives) were elected by the congregation. In Bungo, this system was introduced by Cosme de Torres on the model of the Confraria da Misericordia in Lisbon, and it required the election of lay leaders by ‘lot’. The leaders of the Japanese confraternities also promoted catechesis, reciting the Pater Noster, Ave Maria, and Salve Regina, and reading the Kerendo (Credo), Dochirina Kirishitan (Doctrina Christiana), or the Japanese translation of Imitatio Christi,6 this last being particularly popular. In this way, Japanese 5 The Christian population, however, never grew dramatically, partly because of the long history of persecution and discrimination. Even in the twentieth century, especially during World War II, many Christians, both Catholics and Protestants, were denounced as “traitors” and their children were often scolded, mocked, and even beaten by their teachers and classmates at school according to a church historian from Goto¯ Islands where there are many Christian congregations. Cf. Kobata: 1985, 240–248. This in turn led them to be extremely docile during wartime and to collaborate in unfair treatment of Koreans and other minorities who actually shared their Christian faith. Cf. “Confessions of the Responsibility during the World War II” by the United Church of Japan in 1967” (http://uccj-e.org/confession). 6 Cf. Contemptus Mundi Jenbu (1596). According to Shinzo¯ Kawamura, Japanese Christian confraternities were particularly active in the regions where the early modern autonomous

226

Tomoji Odori

Christians became connected with the tradition of the Devotio Moderna which inspired both Catholics and Protestants in early modern Europe (Habsburg: 2011, 77–177; 184). The Anabaptist idea of the ‘discipleship’ was also not unrelated to this tradition (Davis: 1974, 292–296). As early as the second half of the sixteenth century, Biblical texts were also available in the Japanese language. After the expulsion of foreign missionaries, the hidden Christians eagerly transcribed basic Christian literature to carry in concealment and, led by lay leaders, they began to concentrate upon selected religious practices. They recited essential orasho (Portugese: oração) or prayers at home before simple altars concealed in a closet and at secret outdoor meeting places. They baptized infants. Adult baptism was also performed when a nonChristian neighbor or a bride from outside wanted to join their secret congregation.7 They celebrated Christmas and Easter with a set of prayers. After the ceremonies, they held a kind of love feast or “agape” having sake, rice, and fish in a ritual manner, which was actually the Lord’s Supper arranged in their own style, even though they did not maintain the seven sacraments of the Catholic Church because of the absence of an ordained priest. They helped one another in the spirit of brotherly love and the imitation of Christ. Their devotion was tenacious enough to be handed down through the generations even though many words in their prayers became unintelligible incantations for most believers because they were originally given in Latin and Portuguese. For example, the Canticle of Mary (Magnificat anima mea Dominum) became: “Maniheka, arima men a Domino”. The Lord’s Prayer, by contrast, was recited in Japanese and easily understood by all, as were other important Biblical verses and devotional literature (cf. Ikitsuki Island Museum: 2009, 73–85). Japanese hidden Christians were originally Catholics. However, they underwent a new process of “micro-confessionalization” (Gregory: 1999, 231–240) or internal differentiation within a confession on a congregational basis, whose distinguishing feature lay in the horizontal structure of their lay-led brotherly union. They secretly performed baptism, organized simple ceremonies, and instructed fellow believers and their children. In this regard, their fraternities have something in common with the Anabaptist congregations, among others those that emerged in Switzerland during the Zwinglian Reformation, rejecting the villages called so¯-son existed and popular Buddhism, especially the True Pure Land denomination, had introduced its lay activities such as formation of do¯jo¯ (meeting house) and ko¯ (Scripture study group). Cf. Kawamura: 2014, 357–403. 7 Baptism among the hidden Christians was performed by a lay leader called mizu-kata or the water-bearer. Christians received either infant or adult baptism. In the case of adult baptism, candidates were instructed in the katekismo (catechism) for preparation. The main text was Dochirina Kirishitan, first published in 1592 and hand-copied here and there by the hidden Christians. Cf. Nagasaki Ban Dochirina Kirishitan (1600).

The European Reformation and the Christian Minority in Early Modern Japan

227

state church system and establishing a nonconformist ‘believers’ church’. The Anabaptists exercised strict church discipline and excommunicated unrepentant sinners to keep their community pure and stainless. In most cases, the whole congregation initiated excommunications and accepted members back if they repented. They elected their leaders in some cases by ‘lot’ following Biblical examples (Snyder: 2007, 45–81; Packull: 1995, 222). Although the practice of infant baptism prevents the hidden Christians from being a ‘voluntary association’ in the modern sense, their organization was congregational and had features of a believers’ church. Many of them, just like the Anabaptists, had a regulation providing concrete rules for the excommunication of stubborn sinners obviously based on Matt 18:15–20 (Articles to be observed by the Konfraria, 135–147).

2.

Forgiveness for Repentant Faith Deniers

Most hidden Christians stepped on fumi-e denying their beliefs and went home immediately to say the orashio of konchirisan (prayer of contrition). Since there was no priest administering the Catholic sacrament of confession and forgiveness of sins, the only thing they could do was to say a prayer of heartfelt repentance. The prayer was as follows: O God, Almighty Father from the beginning to the end! I am now before You as a most miserable sinner with no merit caught in evil’s net, placing hope in Your Infinite Mercy. […] I never deny my sins that I have committed. I only confess that my sins are very grievous and numerous. Nonetheless, I know well that Your Mercy and the Merit of the Blood Your Son shed are much greater than my sins. […] Forgive me my sins, O Lord, for You promised us that You forgive sinners whenever they regret and repent their sins (Konchirisan no Riyaku, 177f)!

Repentant sinners were accepted back into the hidden Christian fold every time they said the orashio of contrition. Indeed, almost all had denied their faith by trampling on the fumi-e every year, so no one could say he had never sinned. This practice of repentance was based upon the instructions written in the book Konchirisan no Riyaku (The Merits of Contrition), published in 1603 by Luis Cerqueira, S.J. (d. 1614) for the sake of persecuted Japanese Christians. This was transcribed by the hidden Christians again and again during the long period of persecution. In a handwritten document later entitled Martyrio no Kokoroe (a Guide for Martyrdom), which was confiscated by the shogunate at the end of the eighteenth century, we can find the same kind of admonition: In case a Christian committed such a sin [pretending to be a gentile], he/she must show a heartfelt repentance toward God and return to the faith, desiring to undergo confession when it becomes possible and begging forgiveness (Martyrio no Kokoroe, 97f).

228

Tomoji Odori

It has been suggested that this document was based on a treatise on martyrdom written by Pedro Gomez, S.J. (d. 1600) (Asami: 2009, 257). Indeed, we find very similar passages in his Compendium catholicae Veritatis, in gratiam Japponiorum fratrum Societatis IESU (1593). In this textbook for the Japanese Jesuit College, Gomez argues as follows: “If you are questioned whether you are a Christian not in terms of faith but only of national identity (non de negotio fidei, sed solum de nationibus), you can answer, ‘No, I am not,’ without committing a mortal sin.” In this way, he teaches believers to make an “outward denial of faith (externa negatio fidei)” and “hide (includere)” their religious convictions, citing Matt 10:23, where Jesus says, “If they persecute you in one town, take refuge in the next (Cum aut[em] persequentur in civitate, fugite in aliam).”8 In this way, the hidden Christians developed what I call a “fugitive theology” combined with the teachings of heartfelt repentance and forgiveness. It is well known that European Anabaptists developed a profound tradition of thought concerning forgiveness. Anabaptist believers forgave sinful brothers and sisters, and penitents were readmitted by the congregation, even if they had recanted their faith by promising to attend the state church as a condition for release from torturous prison. The written promise was called Urfehde. Some Anabaptists asserted that a coerced recantation was invalid in the first place and so no repentance was necessary (Scheidegger: 2007, 114f), but they could not have survived such a harsh persecution without this thought and practice of forgiveness for repentant faith deniers (Cf. Leu: 2009, 174–176). I want to suggest that Japanese hidden Christians were the same in this regard.

3.

Defenseless Martyrdom

Although the authors of secret Japanese Christian manuscripts tolerated the weakness of faith deniers, they did not forget to praise brave martyrdom: A martyr is willing to accept the death penalty. […] Christians must not fight a battle, even a defensive one. Those who die in a defensive battle can never be regarded as martyrs. […] It is not improper for Christians to hide themselves in secret places during the persecution, but anyone who desires martyrdom and comes out to be killed will be regarded as a splendid martyr (Martyrio no Kokoroe, 100f).

By the time the prohibition of Christianity was officially lifted in 1873, it is estimated that about 40,000 hidden Christians had suffered martyrdom, so they did not always hide.9 In the early stages of the prohibition, some European 8 Compendium catholicae Veritatis (1593), Cap. 20, 132r–133v. 9 The prohibition was abolished by the Meiji Government under the pressures of European countries calling for religious freedom for the reappeared Christians who had visited the newly

The European Reformation and the Christian Minority in Early Modern Japan

229

missionaries such as Diego Collado, O.P. (d. 1638 or 1641) urged Japanese Christians who had recanted their faith under interrogation to submit a letter to the magistrate’s office to withdraw the recantation (Niffonno Cotobani yô Confesio: 1632, 18–20), and this could lead to arrest and execution (Komei: 1998, 203– 208). It is said that Christians from lower-ranking samurai families regarded brave martyrdom as an “honorable death” suited for them after having become nonviolent warriors for Christ (Asami: 2009, 276–281), and this view of martyrdom “accommodated” to Japanese culture was accepted and disseminated by Mattheus de Couros, S.J. (d. 1632), the presumable author of the manuscript Martyrio no Susume (Exhortations to Martyrdom), which was indirectly acquired by the shogunate at the end of the eighteenth century in Nagasaki together with the above-cited Martyrio no kokoroe (Shimizu: 2014, 131–160). De Couros stated emphatically that “even samurai give their lives for their lord in gratitude for the small reward they have been granted” (Martyrio no Susume, 70). At any rate, if there were no written or oral instructions about martyrdom among the hidden Christians, it would be difficult to explain the fact that even in the second half of ¯ mura and 200 in Mino (modern Gifu the seventeenth century some 400 in O Prefecture) and Owari (modern Aichi Prefecture) were decapitated after having refused to recant their faith (Cf. Kataoka: 1979, 537–542).

4.

God’s Mercy upon Enemies and Forgiveness for Persecutors

In the above-mentioned Martyrio no Susume, we can find an interesting discussion of God’s mercy as well as His vengeance upon enemies: Some Christians wonder why the persecutors trying to destroy Christianity are not punished by God but on the contrary live in prosperity. […] If you desire God’s immediate vengeance against the enemy, you should know that not a single man can escape from the vengeance, for nobody is without sin against God, so you yourselves also must be punished. […] God’s punishment is often delayed or is not delivered in this temporary world, because He wishes to let us know that humans are all weak and have a tendency towards evil, showing us His Tolerance and Mighty Power (Martyrio no Susume, 57f). established Oura Church in Nagasaki in 1865. The church was built by the Fathers from the Society of Foreign Missions of Paris. The hidden Christians had been waiting for the return of bateren (padres) from Europe. According to an old tradition, so-called “prophecy of Bastien” in Nagasaki, “after seven generations there shall come konheso¯ro (confessors) in a big black ship and you will be able to go to confession every day. Then you can sing Christian hymnals loudly everywhere you want. Zencho (gentiles) will give way to you when they pass you on a road.” The hidden Christians met at last the Fathers from Europe in 1865, actually after seven generations. Cf. Kataoka: 1979, 559f.

230

Tomoji Odori

These arguments remind us of the stories of the Anabaptist martyrs compiled in The Bloody Theater, or Martyrs’ Mirror of the Defenseless Christians and first published at Dordrecht in 1660, then at Amsterdam in 1685. This massive volume consists of accounts of more than 4,000 ‘defenseless’ martyrs from the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, and other parts of Europe, including the following impressive account: In the year 1562 four brethren, named Pieter van Maldegem, Pieter van Male, Jacques Bostijn, and Lauwerens Allaerts, were apprehended at Ghent, in Flanders, because they no longer sought to follow the Roman church, but the commandments of God. When they were examined, they freely confessed their faith, and valiantly contended for the truth, with the spiritual sword of the Word of God; and as they in no wise could be moved therefrom, they were sentenced to death, and had to testify with their blood to the name of Christ. They now rest under the altar, and wait until the number of their brethren be fulfilled, that they may be rewarded, and vengeance taken on their enemies (Martyrs’ Mirror, 656).

Here we see one aspect of the Anabaptist theology of martyrdom (Odori: 2017, 49–65): suffering believers must wait for God to reward them and destroy their enemies,10 but because God alone knows the time of Judgement, the Anabaptists tried to forgive their enemies and persecutors as in the Sermon on the Mount as the typical case of the Swiss Anabaptist martyr Hans Landis who was executed in 1614 clearly shows.11 The Anabaptist martyrology with a great number of didactic examples, their thought and practice of forgiveness and the expectation of God’s vengeance or the Last Judgement must have strengthened the Anabaptist movements to the highest degree. The same thing can be said about the Japanese Christian minority. The peaceful and modest attitude of the hidden Christians sometimes aroused compassion among non-Christian neighbors. After the aforementioned Shimabara Rebellion was put down, religious control by the shogunate became much stricter. Learned treatises and popular chapbooks alike spread frightening stories of the ‘wicked Christians’. The real Christians, however, lived harmlessly mainly 10 Also in the Ausbund, the oldest Anabaptist hymnal published in Germany, we can find the Anabaptist longing for the God’s vengeance: “Strangulation and stabbing/ will come, brutal tyranny./ Our Captain will avenge us,/ shatter his enemy’s might;/ he stands by his little flock.” Cf. Ausbund (1564), Das 78. Lied, p. 426. 11 Hans Landis, an Anabaptist preacher from Hirzel, exchanged some words with his executioner before being decapitated in 1614: the executioner is said to have begged, “‘Forgive me, for God’s sake, that which I must do to you.’ Hans Landis comforted the executioner, saying that he had already forgiven him: God would forgive him too.” According to another source of the execution of Landis, “after the executioner had executed him, he loosened his bonds, lifted up his hands, and with tears in his eyes said, ‘God knows that I am not guilty of this blood.’” Martyrs’ Mirror, 1104f. Cf. Lowry ed: 2003, 147. See also Ausbund (1564), Das 132 Lied, p. 782.

The European Reformation and the Christian Minority in Early Modern Japan

231

in rural areas, sometimes in whole Christian villages, other times together with non-Christians. For instance, the Christian population of three villages in Amakusa (in modern Kumamoto Prefecture) was fifty to seventy percent ¯ hashi: 2014, 165f). Even in such conditions, Christians were able to maintain (O their secret religion. But how? ¯ hashi, the answer lies in a certain tolerance and According to Yukihiro O sympathy which non-Christians had for Christians in their villages. Early modern villagers bonded together and practiced mutual aid in the murauke (self-governing) system, and non-Christian villagers worked peacefully with hidden Christians every day, so their arrest or execution would damage the entire village by making them fall behind in the payment of taxes. Thus non-Christians also collaborated in hiding the hidden Christianity. In some villages in Amakusa, there were even confessionally mixed families. In this way, familial ties and neighborly friendship helped the hidden Christians to survive in rural society despite the continued persecution.12 A very similar situation can be observed in the European countryside where Anabaptists lived. In early modern Switzerland, there were at least 3,000 Anabaptists, mostly in rural areas. In the village of Schleitheim in Canton Schaffhausen, the birthplace of the first known confession of faith of the Swiss Brethren, there were some thirty Anabaptists – ten percent of the village population – a century after the beginning of the persecution. Here, not only the villagers but also local officials tolerated Anabaptists out of concern for village autonomy and antipathy toward the city-state of Schaffhausen (Hofer: 1994, 97– 118). In rural area of Canton Zurich, there were also many hidden Anabaptists. Hans Landis, secret Anabaptist minister at Hirzel in Zurich, was a diligent dairy farmer respected by his neighbors. He was executed in 1614, but his movement could not be extinguished. On the contrary, it became more active, because the new legend of a brave martyr added fuel to the fire (Bötsch-Mauz: 2007, 165–202). Anabaptist secret meetings in private houses, in the woods or in caves were visited not only by the believers but also by the sympathizers called ‘friends’ or the ‘truehearted’. They helped the Anabaptists by providing food, drink, hiding places, and information on raids. The Anabaptists were often supported in rural society by good neighbors who had accepted de facto confessional pluralism (Cf. Hostettler: 1991; Berger: 2009/2010, 190–236; Räisänen: 2011). As we have seen, the early modern Japanese religious landscape was even more pluralistic, and the common people were often quite tolerant of religions they did not believe in.

12 Even local officials and Buddhist priests were sometimes unwilling to prosecute the hidden Christians, because they were diligent and obedient to the worldly order. Cf. Ohashi: 2014, chapters 5 and 6.

232 5.

Tomoji Odori

Ancient Folk Customs

Many Japanese scholars argue that the ‘heavily distorted’ Christianity of the hidden Christians should be seen as a ‘syncretic religion’ (Cf. Miyazaki: 2014, 31f, 76–81). I would rather say that they only attended the Buddhist ceremonies as a matter of duty and used Buddhist and Shinto¯ images and talismans to camouflage their Christianity. This circumstance obliged them to introduce mainstream beliefs and customs whether consciously or not. They were not enlightened modern people: faith healing and formulaic prayers were commonplace among them. However, it is important for us to know that some of their ‘magical’ customs were derived from European Christianity. For instance, the hidden Christians living on the island of Ikitsuki used to sprinkle water with a small stick around their houses and on the ground in the village to ward off evil spirits and to keep the villagers and their cattle safe and healthy (Miyazaki: 2014, 115–118). These purification ceremonies took place in January and were called yabarai (house exorcism) and nobarai (field exorcism). Some scholars call them ‘unChristian’ because they happen to have features in common with older Japanese religions and customs. However, these ceremonies clearly originate rather in the house and field benediction at Epiphany, which began in the Middle Ages in Christian Europe and was also influenced by ancient pagan customs of house blessing (cf. Tagita: 1953, 210f; 214f; Rivard: 51–55; 65; 75–77). The Ikitsuki hidden Christians made many small paper crosses by folding and cutting white paper every new year, then distributed these among family members to be eaten, praying for God’s protection over their health (cf. Ikitsuki Island Museum: 2009, 49–52). Eating a small paper amulet is a kind of ‘faith healing’ with a long tradition both in Japan and in Europe. In early modern Germany, Switzerland, and Italy, it was a folk custom to eat a small devotional picture called Esszettel or ‘eating-paper’ to receive blessing and healing (Wilkens: 2013, 243– 259). In any case, the folk customs of the hidden Christians were quite understandable for their non-Christian neighbors who were familiar with similar customs. Among Japanese Buddhist devotees there was a custom to drink a paper talisman for miraculous healing from an illness (Cf. Hayashi: 1990, 292). It seems to me that this basic commonality is one of the reasons why the Christian minority was able to survive in a hostile environment. Behind the so-called ‘syncretism’ and ‘distortion’ of the hidden Christianity, one must also recognize the influence of the Jesuit policy of ‘accommodation’ to Japanese culture and lifestyle. Though the Jesuit Fathers vehemently criticized Buddhist priests, they often showed understanding toward Japanese culture and folk customs, especially under the leadership of Alessandro Valignano (d. 1606) as Visitor to the Jesuit missions in Asia. For instance, he managed to get approval from Rome for Japanese Catholics to join in non-Christian village festivals in-

The European Reformation and the Christian Minority in Early Modern Japan

233

cluding the ritual to light fires to welcome and send off the souls of their ancestors during the days of bon in summer, so that the “joy of the village people (communis populi laetitia)” could be maintained, which was to be shared by Christians with their non-Christian neighbors (Difficiliores Casus, 138). To some extent, the religious practices of the hidden Christians were the product of the Jesuit accommodation policy,13 although this policy was later rejected by the Holy See after the eighteenth-century Chinese Rites Controversy (Standaert: 2017, 165f). We must remind ourselves that the early modern Catholic clerics believed in Godly miracles and demonic interventions in the world. The official letters of the Jesuit Fathers from Japan are full of mysterious stories of demonic possession, exorcistic incantations, or the miraculous emergence of a shining cross in the sky (Cf. Alguns Pontos, 130f, 133). There is no essential difference between these stories and ‘folktales’ at that time. Many miraculous stories are found also in the Anabaptist martyrology. For example, the execution of Thomas Hermann (d. 1528), an Anabaptist apprehended and burned at Kitzbühel in Tyrol, was accompanied by a miracle which reminds us of medieval Catholic legends of martyrs: He was immediately apprehended, tortured, sentenced to the fire, and burned. On his way to the place of execution, he composed and sang a hymn, which is still extant! They could not burn his heart; hence, they threw it into the lake which was near the place of execution (Martyrs’ Mirror, 421).

Early modern Anabaptism was influenced not only by Catholic traditions but also by older folk culture. Old European folk medicine and supernatural faith healing were also brought into North America by German and Dutch immigrants starting in the late seventeenth century. Incantations and prayers to protect people from evil powers and diseases have always been performed by Pennsylvania Dutch (German) people, including the Mennonites and the Amish. This practice is called ‘Braucherei’ in German by themselves and ‘powwow’ in English by outsiders. Powwow doctors or healers remove pain and fever from a patient’s body with spells and prayers, sometimes making the sign of the cross.14 It is said 13 In Nakadorijima, one of the Goto¯ Islands, there is a community of descendants of the hidden Christians which today consists of twenty-seven households, and they maintain their old religion even now. According to Yoshihiro Sakai, the ninth-generation leader of the congregation, whom I interviewed on May 30th, 2017, they celebrate the Gozen (the Supper) not with wine and bread but sake and fish at Easter and on Christmas Eve, because neither wine nor bread were available when their ancestors became Christians. Mr. Sakai emphasizes that they were taught directly by the first missionaries, including Francis Xavier, and that their religious practices are not their inventions but based on authentic tradition. Luís Fróis (d. 1597) reported that a Brother named Damian went out every day to buy “a small amount of rice wine (hum pouco de vinho feito de arroz)” because Gaspar Vilela, S.J. (d. 1572), needed it when he stayed in Kyoto. Cf. Historia de Japam, vol. I, 154. 14 For instance, when a practitioner cures a person from ‘worms’, they say “you are a little worm,

234

Tomoji Odori

that the powwow incantations are rooted in medieval Catholic and even preChristian beliefs, although the practitioners are mostly Protestants (Donmoyer: 2017, 15). As “a kind of folk clergy”, they practiced religious healing even after it was “driven underground” by the Protestant Reformation (Yoder: 1976, 245). Powwow doctors believe that their power comes from God and that “situations in powwowing sometimes parallel happenings in the Bible” (Miller: 2005, 63), although some scholars label such practices “un-Christian” (Cf. Wentz ed: 1993, 16f). The “house-blessing” broadside is a product of the same religiosity: In God’s name I go out, O Lord! Rule today this house, the housewife and my children. […] Do not curse in my house, and go soon to the door to leave: Or God in Heaven may punish you and me at the same time (Earnest: 2015, 69).

This broadside – entitled Geistlicher Haus-segen printed in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, around 1800 – was found pasted in a Martyrs’ Mirror owned by an Anabaptist or pro-Anabaptist family. In essence, it was a talisman to protect the whole house from any evil intervention during the absence of the housefather. Nearly identical language is found on an eighteenth-century house blessing printed at Basel, a Reformed city in Switzerland (Yoder: 2005, 198). Pennsylvania Dutch tradition does not distinguish between medicinal and veterinary remedies. Practitioners make spells and prayers for God’s help and protection in healing humans and animals alike (Yoder: 1976, 244). Although powwowing was condemned by many Amish leaders during the twentieth century, Anabaptist immigrants originally belonged to a people who cherished old folk customs, including faith healing. In my opinion, their shared attachment to these customs was one reason why they were accepted as good neighbors by people of other confessions in North America. Especially when it comes to medicine, the Amish are not isolated at all and interact freely with nonAmish because they find nothing in the Bible to prevent them from doing so (Hostettler: 1976, 252–254).15

not entirely grown. You plague me in marrow and bone. You may be white, black, or red, in a quarter of an hour you will be dead.” To insure safety from a rabid dog, the following charm must be repeated three times: “Dog, hold thy nose to the ground; God has made me and thee, hound.” Hostettler: 1993, 336. Cf. also Kriebel: 2007, 176–185; Weaver: 2011, 88. 15 The same was true of the situation in Europe. An Anabaptist practitioner in veterinary was often visited by the Reformed neighbors in the Jura Mountains in the eighteenth century. Zürcher: 1992/1993, 31f.

The European Reformation and the Christian Minority in Early Modern Japan

235

Conclusions Although the Japanese hidden Christians originally belonged to the Catholic Church, they developed unique mindsets and practices different from Catholic standards during the long period of persecution and clandestine activity. This process was facilitated by the Jesuit policy of ‘accommodation’ to the Japanese culture and lifestyle. As a persecuted minority, the hidden Christian flocks obtained some unique characteristics similar to those of the Anabaptists in Europe. Both created brotherly congregations of simple devotion led by lay leaders, developing fugitive theology combined with the spirit of forgiveness not only for repentant sinners and temporary faith deniers but also for their enemies and persecutors, and this made these minorities quite peaceful although they sometimes expected God’s vengeance upon their enemies. It was the New Testament teachings received by two minorities in constant mortal peril that gave them similar characteristics despite their confessional, geographical, and cultural differences. Above all, the Biblical accounts of the first nonviolent martyrs of the Early Church and admonitions of Christ and his disciples to forgive each other and love enemies were the common basis of the beliefs and practices of the hidden Christians and the Anabaptists. The Devotio Moderna as a Biblical piety was also an important background to these two lay movements. Both the hidden Christians and the Anabaptists could under certain circumstances rely on help from neighbors of different confessions who were not always content with the “Reformations” from above by social, political and ecclesiastical elites. In the unofficial sphere, these neighbors also had very similar folk culture to the two heterodox minorities, including faith healing. It seems to me that in addition to Biblical teachings, the common basic elements of ancient East Asian and European folk customs acted as a slow burning propellant to lead Japanese hidden Christians and European Anabaptists to similar mindsets and practices. The history of the Christian minority in early modern Japan is linked to contemporary issues of ‘inculturation’ and interreligious dialogue. After the prohibition of Christianity was lifted in the late nineteenth century, many hidden Christians returned to the Catholic Church that was re-established in Japan. However, some small minority groups maintained their own tradition, and this was regarded as neither Catholic nor Christian by churchmen and intellectuals. The situation has changed since Pope Francis expressed in 2014 his admiration for the hidden Christians who “maintained, though in secret, a strong community spirit, because Baptism made them become one body in Christ.” Francis declared that “they were isolated and hidden, but always members of the People of God, members of the Church.”16 Meanwhile in Nagasaki, at the beginning of 16 Pope Francis, General Audience, Saint Peter’s Square, Wednesday, 15 January 2014/ Libreria

236

Tomoji Odori

the twenty-first century, Catholics and the descendants of the hidden Christians began to perform joint worship of reconciliation, together with non-Christian attendants at the shrine of Karematsu Jinja in Kurosaki, where the hidden Christians once held secret services (Munshi: 2013, 96). This fact is also worth commemorating on the occasion of the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation alongside the reconciliation processes between Catholics and Lutherans, between the Reformed and the Mennonites, and among other Christian confessions and different religions which have received the global impact of the Reformation in one form or another.

Bibliography Primary Sources Alguns Pontos para a [A]nnua de Vacamatçu, Yonezaua, Mogami Etc., in: Kiichi Matsuda et al. (ed.), Jesuit Letters from Japan in the XVIth and XVIIth Centuries in the Library of Kyoto University of Foreign Studies, Kyoto: Dohosha,1987, 61–200 [Portuguese and Japanese]. Articles to be observed by the Konfraria, Giacomo Antonio Giannone (trans.), in: Joseph Schütte (ed.), Kirishitan Kenkyu 2, 1944, 135–147 [Japanese]. Ausbund, das ist: Etliche schöne Christliche Lieder (1564), 13th ed., Lancaster, Pennsylvania: Verlag von den Amischen Gemeinden in Lancaster County, 1987. Compendium Catholicae Veritatis, in: gratiam Japponiorum fratrum Societatis IESU, per R. Patrem Petrum Gomezium V.P. Societatis IESU in provincia Japponica (1593), Biblioteca Vaticana, Reg. Lat., 426, reproduced by Kirishitan Bunko Library, Sophia University, Tokyo, 1997. Contemptus Mundi Jenbu (1596), Satoru Obara (ed.), Tokyo: Kyobunkwan, 2002 [Japanese]. Difficiliores Casus, quorum resolutio in Japonia desideratur, et primo circa matrimonia, in: Jesús López Gay (ed.), Un Documento Inédito del P.G. Vázquez (1549– 1604) sobre los Problemas Morales del Japán, Monumenta Nipponica 16 1/2, 132–144. Historia de Japam, Luís Fróis, José Wicki, S. J. (ed.), vol. I, Lisboa: Biblioteca Nacional, 1976. Konchirisan no Riyaku, in: Satoru Obara (ed.), Martyrdom and hidden Activities of Kirishitan, Tokyo: Kyobunkwan, 2006, 157–179 [Japanese]. Martyrio no Kokoroe, in: Satoru Obara (ed.), Martyrdom and hidden Activities of Kirishitan, Tokyo: Kyobunkwan, 2006, 96–105 [Japanese]. Martyrio no Susume, in: Satoru Obara (ed.), Martyrdom and hidden Activities of Kirishitan, Tokyo: Kyobunkwan, 2006, 49–95 [Japanese]. Editrice Vaticana (https://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/audiences/2014/documents/ papa-francesco_20140115_udienza-generale.html).

The European Reformation and the Christian Minority in Early Modern Japan

237

Martyr’s Mirror (1685): The Bloody Theater, or Martyrs’ Mirror of the Defenseless Christians, Thieleman Jans van Braght (ed.), Joseph Sohm (trans.), Waterloo, Ontario: Herald Press, 1977. Nagasaki ban Dochirina Kirishitan (1600), Arimichi Ebisawa (ed.), Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, Publishers, 1950 [Japanese]. Niffonno Cotobani yô Confesio (1632), Diego Collado, O.P. (ed.), Roma: Typis & impensis Sacr. Congreg. de Propaga. Fide.

Secondary Literature Asami, Masakazu (2009), Idolatry in the Kirishitan Era, Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press [Japanese]. Berger, Ulrich (2009/2010), Der Lebensweg des Täufers und Schärers Ulrich Galli senior aus dem Eggiwil, in: Mennonitica Helvetica 32/33, 190–236. Bodart-Bailey, Beatrice M. (ed.) (1999), Kaempfer’s Japan. Toukgawa Culture Observed, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Bötsch-Mauz, Barbara (2007), Täufer, Tod und Toleranz. Der Umgang der Zürcher Obrigkeit mit dem Täuferlehrer Hans Landis, in: Urs B. Leu/Christian Scheidegger (ed.), Die Zürcher Täufer 1525–1700, Zürch: Theologischer Verlag, 165–202. Boxer, Charles Ralph (1951), The Christian Century in Japan 1549–1650, Berkeley: University of California Press. Cieslik, Hubert (ed.) (1999), Concise Encyclopedia of Japanese History: Kirishitan, Tokyo: Tokyodo [Japanese]. Clulow, Adam (2013), The Company and the Shogun: The Dutch Encounter With Tokugawa Japan, New York: Columbia University Press. Davis, Kenneth R. (1974), Anabaptism and Asceticism. A Study in Intellectual Origins, Scottsdale, PA: Herald Press. Donmoyer, Patrick J. (2017), The Heavens are My Cap and the Earth is My Shoes. The Religious Origins of Powwowing and the Ritual Traditions of the Pennsylvania Dutch (Powwowing in Pennsylvania: Healing Rituals of the Dutch Country), Bryn Athyn, Pennsylvania: Glencairn Museum. Earnest, Russell D. et al. (ed.) (2015), God Bless This House. The Printed House Blessings (Haus-Segen) of the Pennsylvania Germans 1780–1921, Morgantown, Pennsylvania: Masthof Press. Gregory, Brad (1999), Salvation at Stake. Christian Martyrdom in early modern Europe, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Habsburg, Maximilian von (2011), Catholic and Protestant Translations of the Imitatio Christi, 1425–1650. From Late Medieval Classic to Early Modern Bestseller, Farnham: Ashgate. Hayashi, Nobuo (1990), The popular Buddhism, Tokyo: Shinchosha Publishing [Japanese]. Hofer, Roland (1994), Täufer im 17. Jahrhundert. Herrschaftsdringung und untertäniger Widerstand in der Frühen Neizeit, in: Schaffhauser Beiträge zur Geschichte 71, 97–118.

238

Tomoji Odori

Hostettler, John A. (1976), Folk Medicine and Sympathy Healing among the Amish, in: Wayland D. Hand (ed.), American Folk Medicine, Berkley: University of California Press, 249–258. Hostettler, John A. (1993), Amish Society, 4th edition, Baltimore/London: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Hostettler, Urs (1991), Der Rebell vom Eggiwil. Aufstand der Emmentaler, Bern: Zytglogge. Ho¯zawa, Naohide (2013), A common View and reality-based Information of Ji-dan System, in: Rekishigaku Kenkyu 911, 68–77 [Japanese]. Ikitsuki Island Museum (ed.) (2009), The hidden Christians in Ikitsuki Island, Hirado: Ikitsuki Island Museum [Japanese]. Kanda, Chisato (2010), Religions in the Warring States Period, Tokyo: Kodansha [Japanese]. Kataoka, Vakichi et al. (1974), Underground Religions in early modern Japan, Tokyo: Hyoronsha [Japanese]. Kataoka, Vakichi et al. (1979), A History of Christian Martyrdom in Japan, Tokyo: Jijitushinsha, [Japanese]. Kato, Tomohiro (1994), The Age of the Bateren and Sôrin, Fukuoka: Sekifusha [Japanese]. Kawamura, Shinzo¯ (2014), From the Mediterranean World to Japan, in: Atsushi Kawahara/Shun’ichi Ikegami (ed.), European Confraternities in the Middle Ages and in early modern Era, Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press, 357–403 [Japanese]. Kobata, Sunao (1985), The Lives of Kirishitan Peasants, Fukuoka: Ashi-shobo¯ [Japanese]. Kriebel, David W. (2007), Powwowing among the Pennsylvania Dutch. A traditional Medical Practice in the Modern World, University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press. Kuroda, Toshio (1993), Shinto in the History of Japanese Religion, in: Mark R. Mullins/ Susumu Shimazono/Paul L. Swanson (ed.), Religion and Society in Modern Japan. Selected Readings, Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press, 7–30. Leu, Urs B. (2009), Täuferische Netzwerke in der Eidgenossenschaft, in: Anselm Schuber/ Astrid von Schlachta/Michael Driedger (ed.), Gernzen des Täufertums, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 168–185. Lowry, James W. (ed.) (2003), Hans Landis. Swiss Anabaptist Martyr in Seventeenth Century Documents, Millersburg, Ohio: Ohio Amish Library. Murai, Sanae (2002), The Prohibition of Christianity and popular Religion, Tokyo: Yamakawa Publishing Co [Japanese]. Miller, Phyllis (2005), Amish Powwow Accounts, in: Ervin Beck (ed.), Menno Folk 2. A Sampler of Mennonite & Amish Folklore, Scottdale, Pennsylvania: Herald Press, 57–65. Miyazaki, Kentaro¯ (2014), The real hidden Christians. Japanese Understanding and Reception of Christianity, Tokyo: Yoshokwa kobunkan [Japanese]. Odori, Tomoji (2017), God’s Vengeance and Forgiveness for Enemies. A new Perspective on the Anabaptist Contribution to the Development of religious Toleration and Reconciliation, in: Katsumi Fukasawa/Benjamin J. Kaplan/Pierre-Yves Beaurepaire (ed.), Religious Interactions in Europe and the Mediterranean World. Coexistence and Dialogue from the 12th to the 20th Centuries, London/New York: Routledge, 49–65.

The European Reformation and the Christian Minority in Early Modern Japan

239

¯ hashi, Yukihiro (2014), The hidden Christians. Prohibition Policy and Common People O in the Edo Period, Tokyo: Kodansha [Japanese]. Packull, Werner O. (1995), Hutterite Beginnings. Communitarian Experiments during the Reformation, Baltimore/London: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Parker, Geoffrey (2013), Global Crisis. War, Climate Change and Catastrophe in the Seventeenth Century, London: Yale University Press. Räisänen, Päivi (2011), Ketzer im Dorf. Visitationsverfahren, Täuferbekämpfung und lokale Handlungsmuster im frühneuzeitlichen Württemberg, Konstanz: UVK Verlag. Rivard, Derek A. (2009), Blessing the World. Ritual and Lay Piety in Medieval Religion, Washington D.C: Catholic University of America Press. Scheidegger, Christian (2007), Täufer, Konfession und Staat zur Zeit Heinrich Bullingers, in: Urs B. Leu/Christian Scheidegger (ed.), Die Zürcher Täufer 1525–1700, Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 67–116. Screech, Timon (2012), The English and the Control of Christianity in the Early Edo Period, in: Japan Review 24, 3–40. Schwemmer, Patrick (2017), Ko¯waka Ballads and the Japanese Gospel Readings in the Barreto Miscellany, in: Gunki to Katarimono 73, 54–63 [Japanese]. Shimizu, Yuko (2014), The Acquisitions of Christian Documents by the Nagasaki Magistrate’s Office during the First Suppression Operation at Urakami, in: The Bulletin of the Institute for Christian Studies Meiji Gakuin University 46, 131–160. Snyder, Arnold C. (2007), Swiss Anabaptism. The Beginnings, 1523–1525, in: John D. Roth/James M. Stayer (ed.), A Companion to Anabaptism and Spiritualism, 1521–1700, Leiden/London: Brill, 45–81. Standaert, Nicolas (2017), Chinese Rites Controversy, in: Thomas Worcester (ed.), The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Jesuits, Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 165f. Tagita, Ko¯ya (1953), Transformation of Christianity in a Japanese Farming Village, in: The Japanese Journal of Ethnology 18/3, 195–226. Takano, Yurika (2013), Konishi Yukinaga’s “Intervention” and the Jesuits, in: Nihonshigaku Shuroku 36, 1–15 [Japanese]. Takase, Ko¯ichiro¯ (1977), A Study of the Kirishitan Era, Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Takase, Ko¯ichiro¯ (2002), Trade and Foreign Policy in the Kirishitan Era, Tokyo: Yagishoten. Weaver, Karol K. (2011), Medical Caregiving and Identity in Pennsylvania’s Anthracite Region, 1880–2000, University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press. Wentz, Richard E. (ed.) (1993), Pennsylvania Dutch Folk Spirituality, Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist Press. Wilkens, Katharina (2013), Drinking the Quran, Swallowing the Madonna. Embodied Aesthetics of Popular Healing Practices, in: Afe Adogame/Magnus Echtler/Oliver Freiberger (ed.), Alternative Voice. A Plurality Approach for Religious Studies. Essays in Honor of Ulrich Berner, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 243–259. Yoder, Don (1976), Hohman and Romanus: Origins and Diffusion of the Pennsylvania German Powwow Manual, in: Wayland D. Hand (ed.), American Folk Medicine, Berkley: University of California Press, 235–248.

240

Tomoji Odori

Yoder, Don (2005), The Pennsylvania German Broadside, University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press. Zürcher, Isaac (1992/1993), Die Alttäufer im Fürstbistum Basel 1700–1890, in: Mennonitica Helvetica 15/16, 7–107.

Gregory Soderberg

Purity and Polity: Exploring Tensions in the Early Reformed Traditions

1.

Introduction

In recent decades, considerable attention has been paid to rediscovering John Calvin the ‘liturgist’.1 In contrast to some Reformed worship services, which have been labeled services of the ‘Word’ only, many urge us to return to the more balanced worship service advocated by Calvin – a service of ‘Word’ and ‘Sacrament’. Part of this Reformed ressourcement is a movement to implement weekly communion.2 This growth of more frequent communion in Reformed churches

1 De Jong (1998) takes Calvin as a benchmark for truly Reformed worship, with the purpose of showing contemporary churches how far they are from Calvin’s stated preferences in worship. See also Johnson: 2014; Byars: 2014, 35–37; Meyers: 2003, 115–116; Vander Zee: 2004. Vander Zee is heavily indebted to Calvin throughout. 2 Alan D. Falconer writes: “Thus, while there was a plurality of voices in the Reformation, there has been an increasing focus on the life and thought of John Calvin, which has influenced the thought, life, and worship of Reformed churches in the twentieth century—creating a climate, for example, that has facilitated discussion on the frequency of the celebration of the Lord’s Supper,” (2003, 146). William Maxwell’s liturgical scholarship energized this movement early in the twentieth century. He claimed: “The eucharist perfectly expresses the essential Christian belief. No other act of Christian worship can so completely show forth the fullness of the Faith” (1948, 3–4). Additionally, in 1965, the Swiss liturgist and ecumenist J.J. von Allmen agreed with Karl Barth that “worship without the Eucharist is a theological impossibility,” going on to compare removing the Eucharist from worship to an amputation, (1965, 155–156). Von Allmen quotes from Barth, but only gives the attribution, “Dogmatics,” without further specification. Clearly, for these writers at the height of the ecumenical and liturgical movement, Reformed worship without the Eucharist was crippled. More recent writers concur. Nicholas Wolterstorff maintains that this is the most “fundamental” issue in Reformed liturgics today. He asks, “does it serve the health of the church to celebrate the Lord’s Supper infrequently?” and then proceeds to pit Calvin against Zwingli on this matter (1992, 295), quoted in Vander Zee: 2004, 232. Vander Zee adds: “We need every nourishment that God provides, and to miss the meal not only snubs his gracious hospitality but creates spiritual anorexics,” (232). Michael Horton has argued cogently that, “One’s view of the efficacy of Communion largely determines one’s views concerning frequency. It is not surprising that a more Zwinglian approach, which emphasizes the subjectivity of the believer and the community, will yield a more introspective Eucharistic

242

Gregory Soderberg

seems spurred on by the influence of the liturgical movement, along with a retrieval of Calvin’s view of the efficacy of the Eucharist.3 However, despite all the salutary effects of such a renewed focus on Calvin the ‘liturgist’ or Calvin’s Eucharistic theology, one gets the impression that those arguing in this way are ignoring large swaths of the Reformed tradition. For Calvin, more frequent communion was not an unqualified blessing. Access to communion had to be guarded and highly regulated. To fully appreciate Calvin the ‘liturgist’ we also have to understand Calvin the ‘churchman’, or Calvin the ‘disciplinarian’. We also need to go back further than Calvin and re-discover Oecolampadius and Bucer. After examining the general attitude towards communion frequency in the first generation of reformers, this paper will then attempt to balance, and situate these views within the broader context of developing Reformed ecclesiologies and political realities. I will conclude with a brief application to the present, along with some cautionary words for those engaged in Reformed ressourcement.

2.

Communion Frequency in the Early Reformation

2.1

Communion Frequency in the First Generation of Reformers

Although there were movements before the Reformation which advocated more frequent oral reception, as opposed to visual reception of communion, the issue of communion frequency took center stage in the Reformation (Rubin: 1991, 72– 73). The reformers stressed that communion should be received by all – not just by the priest. However, just as there was no uniform Eucharistic theology among the reformers, there was also variety in communion frequency in Reformed churches.4 Although some reformers argued for weekly communion, other patterns prevailed.5 practice. To the extent that the Supper is considered a divine gift, its frequent celebration is likely to be affirmed” (2008, 137). 3 Regarding the former, Alan D. Falconer writes: “Undoubtedly one legacy of the liturgical movement has been the more frequent celebration of the Lord’s Super within Reformed churches and in non-Reformed Christian traditions,” (2003, 145). According to James White, “The period since Vatican II has seen a variety of changes in Reformed worship, changes that one writer has called ‘catching up to Calvin’,” (1989, 76), quoting Allen: 1974, 580–594. 4 See Benedict: 2002, 500–501, for a summary of the communion practices of various European Reformed churches, especially in regards to receiving communion sitting or standing around a table. 5 As Benedict summarizes: “Communion three or four times a year became the norm in most other continental Reformed churches as well, although the sacrament was celebrated monthly in Basel, Nassau-Dillenberg, and among English and New England Congregationalists, and six times yearly in Hungary and certain Dutch cities” (2002, 502).

Purity and Polity: Exploring Tensions in the Early Reformed Traditions

2.2

243

Johannes Oecolampad(ius) (1482–1531)

Johannes Oecolampad(ius) (1482–1531) played a role in the reformations of both Augsburg and later Basel.6 In Basel, at least, it seems that weekly communion was the ideal. In a letter to Sebastian Hubmaier (1525), Oecolampad discusses infant baptism and describes his ideal Eucharistic service. Writing about De ritu coenae dominicae, he assumes the Eucharist has a regular place in worship and also manifests his strong desire to guard the purity of the Supper.7 Oecolampad was among the first of the reformers to argue for ‘fencing’ the table, a feature that Calvin and others implemented and enforced. Although Oecolampad seems to have favored a weekly Eucharist, the actual communion practices in Basel are somewhat in dispute. According to Philip Schaff, when Protestant worship was officially established in Basel (April, 1529), this included “weekly communion in one of the city churches,” although Schaff does not explain this further (1910, 114). Olaf Kuhr argues further that this Basel Reformation Ordinance of 1529 possibly influenced Farel and Calvin’s 1537 Articles concerning the Organization of the Church and of Worship, which they submitted to the Genevan town council. The Basel Ordinance, “laid down that the Lord’s Supper had to be celebrated in Basel each Sunday, alternating between the four city parishes,” and so it is possible that this cycle of “rotating communions” influenced Farel and Calvin (1998, 23).8 While some authors claim that Basel was the only Swiss Reformed city to practice weekly communion, we see this is not

6 See Rupp: 1969, part I, for a helpful overview of Oecolampad in English. Ernst Staehelin’s works are still foundational (1939; 1927). Also helpful are Miller: 1982, 5–24; Fudge: 1997, 268–284; Piotrowski: 2012, 131–137; Fisher: 2009. 7 “After the confession, gospelling, hymns and prayers and after the Trisagion, I would have a period of silence appointed in which each might fervently meditate within himself on the Passion of the Lord. Then the words of the Lord’s Supper appointed for the rite should be read publicly and intelligibly, and when these have been read, again a great silence for meditation and the giving of thanks. Afterwards should come the Lord’s Prayer, and when this is over, the communicants should be summoned to the Lord’s Supper, having first been admonished by the minister that each shall examine and judge himself. And if anybody is present who has been admonished by the Church the second or third time according to the Lord’s command he should be repelled from the table until there is sure proof of his penitence, and he is reconciled. Then when they have received communion with the exhortation to charity and care of the poor, the congregation might depart in peace,” (Rupp: 1969, 26, translating from the original in Staehelin: 1927, no. 239, Jan. 18, 1525). Staehelin points out that, at the time of writing, Oecolampadius was still a “Predigtvikar” and did not have any real influence over the order of the Mass or Lord’s Supper. However, the letter does give us a record of Oeoclampadius’ ideals, which he tried to implement later in Basel. 8 Kuhr also points out other striking similarities between the documents, which suggest clear lines of influence from Basel to Geneva. For more detail, see Kuhr: 1999.

244

Gregory Soderberg

quite accurate.9 The different churches in the city celebrated communion in turn.10

2.3

Martin Bucer (1491–1551)

It seems fairly clear that Bucer desired weekly communion, but only partially succeeded in attaining this ideal.11 Bruno Bürki argues that, in Strasbourg, Bucer had to settle for a system of rotating Eucharists, so that each parish church would celebrate the Supper on every fourth Sunday. However, the cathedral where Bucer pastored held the Supper every week.12 But communion frequency was not the goal – pure and proper communion dominated Bucer’s writings. In his Brief Summary of Christian Doctrine, prepared in 1548 to distinguish the Strasbourg reform from both Anabaptist teaching as well as the Catholic-friendly Augsburg Interim of 1548, Bucer does not mention the issue of frequency at all.13 On the contrary, he stresses the need for proper preparation to receive communion.14 Bucer’s expansive description of the Eucharist does not include any mention of frequency. Rather, like most sixteenth-century treatments, he focuses on the nature of the Eucharist, rather than how often it should be observed (Bucer: 1972, 78).

9 For example, James K. Cameron claims, “Of the Reformed cities of Switzerland only Basel provided for a weekly celebration; in other German-speaking areas three times a year was normal,” (1972, 183, n. 14). Cameron does list some sources, but the source of this claim is unclear. 10 See Campi/Wälchli: 2012, 26. 11 See Thompson: 2003, 75–95 for an overview, as well as the careful study of Ian Hazlett (1975). Peter Matheson also helpfully elucidates the motivations and priorities driving Bucer’s efforts of reform and ecumenical mediation (1994, 5–16). 12 Bürki: 2005, 442. See also Thompson: 1961, 160–161. James Hastings Nichols suggests that Bucer tried, unsuccessfully, to institute weekly communion (1968, 56). He also notes: “But the Eucharistic order remained, even when it was reduced by lack of congregational participation to a ‘dry Mass.’ The minister conducted the service, with the exception of the reading and preaching of the Word, from the table.” This detail is important to remember, especially when it is charged that the Reformed service became simply a ‘preaching service’. See also Old: 2013, 25. 13 Bucer: 1972, 75; Ein Summarischer Vergriff der Christlichen Lehre…, Bucer-Bibliographie, nr. 183. 14 “The minister, following the example and command of our dear Lord, should there prepare the participants in all seriousness and with true devotion, by means of straightforward instruction derived from the holy Scripture, to partake of the holy sacraments. (To this end it has long been the practice to read to the people the writings of the prophets, apostles and evangelists.)” (Bucer: 1972, 86).

Purity and Polity: Exploring Tensions in the Early Reformed Traditions

3.

Church Discipline and Communion Frequency

3.1

Church Discipline & Communion Frequency

245

It is misleading to focus exclusively on the theologies of the Eucharist without also examining what various reformers believed about the preconditions for participation in the Eucharist. The reformers were not simply trying to purify the worship of the church – they were in varying degrees trying to reform society and construct cities and nations in accordance with the Word of God.15 These theories of church discipline remained abstract theories in some instances, so it is tenuous to conclude too much about their impact on patterns of communion frequency. Other theories were implemented more successfully. J. Wayne Baker discerns two major approaches to ecclesiastical discipline – that of Zwingli (the Zurich tradition) and that of Oecolampad, Farel/Calvin, and Beza (the Basel/Genevan tradition) (1985, 18).16 Since Eucharistic practices and theologies are intimately bound up with issues of church discipline, it is helpful to briefly survey the development of these two major approaches.

15 As Amy Nelson Burnett observes: “While many of the laity may have seen the Reformation as an opportunity to throw off the regulations and requirements of the medieval church, the reformers themselves, especially those who had been influenced by the biblical humanism of Erasmus, were concerned with forming a new Christian society,” “Church Discipline and Moral Reformation in the Thought of Martin Bucer,” (1991, 440). See also Hendrix: 2004, for an extended treatment of this theme. 16 As Baker summarizes: “The Zurich tradition was ably defended not only by Bullinger, but also by Wolfgang Musculus at Bern and by Thomas Erastus at Heidelberg. That tradition, however, came under increasing attack by the second Reformed tradition, as it was further developed by Guillaume Farel and John Calvin, and fully explicated by Theodore Beza. In the end, it was the position of Oecolampadius that became the Reformed approach to church discipline.” However, this categorization may be too simplistic: “While this distinction is in many ways accurate, these two positions are better understood to represent different ends of a more variegated spectrum of Reformed opinion on church discipline in particular and the relationship of the church and state more broadly in the 16th century” (Ballor/Littlejohn: 2013). Additionally, as these authors note, “recent scholarship increasingly suggests that other colleagues of Bucer, such as the Italian reformer Peter Martyr Vermigli and the Polish reformer Jan Łaski, (1499–1560), exercised an equally decisive influence on the development of Reformed discipline across Europe.” However, because this study is part of a larger project, focused on the reception and appropriation of the reformers in later communion frequency polemics, Vermigli and Łaski cannot be treated here, as they do not figure prominently in later discussions.

246 3.2

Gregory Soderberg

Oecolampadius and Church Discipline

We cannot attempt to do justice to Zwingli here and will focus on the contribution of Oecolampadius, since his work more properly forms the background to Calvin, and to what would eventually become the dominant Reformed understanding of church discipline. Although the other major Reformers were interested in the idea of “eldership” in the church, Oecolampadius was the “first sixteenth-century reformer to argue for an eldership which would administer discipline independent of civil authority,” and he “insisted on autonomy for the church in the disciplinary sphere” (Graham: 1996, 10). Oecolampadius believed that “church and civil society were separate entities,” [and] “that there was an essential difference between secular and ecclesiastical authority” (Baker: 1985, 7). Oecolampadius wanted to exclude unrepentant sinners from the Lord’s Supper and so the power to ban sinners must be given to the church, not to the city government (Baker: 1985, 8). However, his ideals were never realized in Basel, partly due to opposition from the city council, and partly from the lack of real authority given to pastors to enforce church discipline.17

3.3

Bucer on Church Discipline

Although his plans for church discipline were also unrealized in his own contexts, Bucer had a profound influence on other churches and cities, primarily through Jean Calvin, who took Bucer’s ideas and implemented them in Geneva.18 He differed from Zwingli because he did not equate the Christian commonwealth with the church, but rather distinguished the jurisdiction of the magistrate from the ministers of the church (Spijker: 1994, 42). For Bucer, church discipline was not merely negative. Its primary purpose, manifested in different forms, was to “transform the church into a God-fearing community which demonstrated its faith through a concern for the spiritual and physical well-being of its members. 17 Nelson Burnett: 2016, 249–254. See Kuhr: 1998, for more on the probable influence of Oecolampadius on Calvin in regards to church discipline. See also Spijker: 1996, 219–225, for Oecolampadius’ influence on Bucer. 18 “Bucer’s broad definition of church discipline reflects his concern that belief should influence behavior … all the elements of church discipline were intended to aid the internalization of moral norms and thus provide a standard for the individual Christian’s behavior. In this respect, Bucer’s ideas foreshadow some of the techniques used in the second half of the sixteenth century by Lutherans, Calvinists, and Catholics alike to shape the confessional identity of their members,” Nelson Burnett: 1991, 453–454. See also Spijker: 1994, 36–37 for further instances of Bucer’s influence on Calvin in the matter of church discipline. The most comprehensive study of Bucer’s views on church discipline remains Nelson Burnett: 1994. For Bucer’s views on ecclesiology in general, Spijker: 1996, is also indispensible.

Purity and Polity: Exploring Tensions in the Early Reformed Traditions

247

The means for this transformation was the reintroduction of Christian discipline.”19 As Bucer pursued unity with the Lutherans on the Eucharist (culminating in the Wittenberg Concord of 1536), he also began to advocate a precommunion examination (Nelson Burnett: 1991, 444). It is not clear whether this was ever actually implemented in Strasbourg, but it remains an important legacy of the Reformed Eucharistic tradition. Oecolampadius, Bucer, and Calvin (as we shall see) advocated both frequent communion as well as diligent preparation and pastoral examination. These twin emphases have not often been held together in Reformed churches.

4.

Calvin, the Eucharist, and Church Discipline

4.1

Calvin and the Eucharist

In comparison to the many controversies Calvin tackled in his lifetime, the issue of communion frequency did not receive as much attention as other issues. Calvin’s stated preference for frequent communion can be briefly summarized. In the Institutes, Calvin devotes four sections specifically to the question of communion frequency.20 Besides his often-quoted claim that the custom of taking communion once a year is a “veritable invention of the devil,” Calvin is convinced that “the Lord’s Table should have been spread at least once a week for the assembly of Christians, and the promises declared in it should feed us spiritually. None is indeed to be forcibly compelled, but all are to be urged and aroused; also the inertia of indolent people is to be rebuked. All, like hungry men, should flock to such a bounteous repast” (Institutes, 4.17.46).21 19 Nelson Burnett identifies four aspects of church discipline in Bucer’s mature thought: “religious instruction for both children and adults; a public confession of faith and obedience, especially as part of a confirmation ceremony; fraternal admonition combined with the oversight of morals by pastors and lay elders; and in cases of grave sin, the imposition of public penance and, if necessary, excommunication” (1991, 440). See also Spijker: 1996, 473– 474 for a summary of Bucer’s views on church discipline. 20 He writes: “Now, to get rid of this great pile of ceremonies, the Supper could have been administered most becomingly if it were set before the church very often, and at least once a week,” Calvin, Institutes, 4.17.43. He appeals to Acts 2:42 and “Paul” (without citing a particular verse) and states: “Thus it became the unvarying rule that no meeting of the church should take place without the Word, prayers, partaking of the Supper, and almsgiving,” (Institutes, 4.17.44). He maintains that this apostolic pattern “remained in use for many centuries after,” (Institutes, 4.17.46). 21 Additionally, he sees the “artifice” of the devil in introducing this custom of infrequent communion, because it makes people “slothful” the rest of the year.

248

Gregory Soderberg

Calvin addresses the topic of communion frequency and preparation in his 1540 Short Treatise on the Holy Supper of our Lord and only Saviour Jesus Christ.22 Calvin presents a remarkable summary of his Eucharistic theology: “Or to explain the matter more simply, as we in ourselves are lacking in all good and have not a particle of what might help us to salvation, the Supper is attestation that, being made partakers of the death and passion of Jesus Christ, we have everything that is useful and salutary for us” (Calvin: 1965, 145). Calvin is anxious to affirm that real communion occurs in the Supper.23 Because we have real communion with the risen Christ, we must approach the Table cautiously.24 While Calvin exhorts his readers to prepare, and to examine themselves, he also cautions them against the opposite extreme of overly morbid introspection (1965, 150). We need to examine ourselves, to determine, “whether we have a true repentance in ourselves and a true faith in our Lord Jesus Christ” (1965, 150). In summary, to “communicate worthily” means to eat in faith, trusting in Christ alone, while also recognizing our sinfulness and our deep need for the righteousness of Christ (1965, 150). We need to come to the Lord’s Supper precisely because we are weak and sinful (1965, 152). Although later generations of Calvinists seem to have struggled with the issues of proper preparation, and feeling unworthy to partake of communion, Calvin strikes a balanced, pastoral note in this treatise.25 Calvin exhorts his readers to come to the Table, no matter how they feel about their own personal worthiness (1965, 150). How often should we observe the Supper? We quote this in full because it relates directly to the key point of investigation in this paper: 22 The French title is “Petit traicté de la saincte Cene du nostre Seigneur Jesus Christ”. See also Speelman: 2016, 231–243 for more analysis. 23 He claims that, “all benefit which we ought to seek from the Supper is annulled, unless Jesus Christ be there given to us as substance and foundation of all. This agreed, we shall confess without doubt that to deny the true communication of Jesus Christ to be offered us in the Supper is to render this holy sacrament frivolous and useless – a blasphemy execrable and unworthy of attention” (Calvin: 1965, 146). 24 “It is, then, not without reason that Paul passes such grave condemnation on those who take it unworthily. For if there is nothing in heaven or earth of greater value and dignity than the body and blood of our Lord, it is no small fault to take it inconsiderately and without being well prepared. Therefore he exhorts us to examine ourselves well, in order to use it properly” (Calvin: 1965, 149). 25 Calvin also writes: “When we feel within us a strong distaste and hatred of all vices, proceeding from the fear of God, and a desire to live well in order to please our Lord, we are fit to partake of the Supper, notwithstanding the vestiges of infirmity which we carry in our flesh. If indeed we were not weak, subject to mistrust, and imperfect in life, the sacrament would be of no service to us, and it would have been superfluous to institute it. Since then it is a remedy which God has given us to assist our frailty, to fortify our faith, to augment our charity, and to further us in all sanctity of life, so far from this making us abstain, we ought the more to make use of it, the more we feel oppressed by the disease” (1965, 152).

Purity and Polity: Exploring Tensions in the Early Reformed Traditions

249

As to the time of using it, there can be no certain rule for all. For there are certain particular impediments which excuse a man for absenting himself. And besides we have no express command, constraining Christians to make use of it every day it is offered to them. However, if we have careful regard to the end for which our Lord intended it, we should realize that the use of it ought to be more frequent than many make it (Calvin: 1965, 153).26

4.2

Calvin and Church Discipline

Although Calvin’s proposed Articles sur le Gouvernement de l’Eglise (1537) were not fully adopted or approved by the Genevan magistrates, they do clearly show us Calvin’s theological and ecclesiastical priorities. In particular, Calvin is concerned to regulate and guard the purity of the Eucharist. The Articles are an important early indication of Calvin’s dual priorities of both frequent communion and pure communion. He begins the Articles with these priorities.27 He also clearly states his preference for weekly communion.28 However, Calvin is a realist. 26 He continues: “For the more infirmity oppresses us, the more frequently we need to have recourse to that which is able and ought to serve to confirm our faith and further us in purity of life. Therefore, the custom ought to be well established in all Churches, of celebrating the Supper as frequently as the capacity of the people will allow. And each individual in his own place ought to prepare himself to receive it whenever it is administered in the congregation, unless there be some grave hindrance which compels him to abstain. Though we have no express command defining the time and the day, it should be enough for us to know that the intention of our Lord is that we use it often; otherwise we shall not know well the benefit which it offers us.” 27 “Right Honourable Gentlemen: it is certain that a Church cannot be said to be well ordered and regulated unless in it the Holy Supper of our Lord is always being celebrated and frequented, and this under such good supervision that no one dare presume to present him self unless devoutly, and with genuine reverence for it. For this reason, in order to maintain the Church in its integrity, the discipline of excommunication is necessary, by which it is possible to correct those that do not wish to submit courteously and with all obedience to the Word of God” (Calvin: 1965, 48). For more analysis and background, see Herman A. Speelman’s ground-breaking study (2014) and Speelman (2016), ch. 8, for the different stages in Calvin’s theory and practice of church discipline. 28 “It would be well to require that the Communion of the Holy Supper of Jesus Christ be held every Sunday at least as a rule. When the Church assembles together for the great consolation which the faithful receive and the profit which proceeds from it, in every respect according to the promises which are there presented to our faith, then we are really made participants of the body and blood of Jesus, of his death, of his life, of his Spirit and of all his benefits. As for the exhortations made there, we are to recognize and magnify by professing his praise the marvellous things graciously vouchsafed by God to us; and finally we are to live as Christians, being joined together in one peace and brotherly unity as members of one and the same body. In fact, it was not instituted by Jesus for making a commemoration two or three times a year, but for a frequent exercise of our faith and charity, of which the congregation of Christians should make use as often as they be assembled, as we find written in Acts ch. 2, that the disciples of our Lord continued in the breaking of bread, which is the ordinance of the Supper.

250

Gregory Soderberg

He recognizes that the people of Geneva may not be ready to suddenly start participating in a weekly Eucharist, without proper preparation and teaching: “But because the frailty of the people is still so great, there is danger that this sacred and so excellent mystery be misunderstood if it be celebrated so often” (1965, 50). Accordingly, the Articles recommend a compromise of monthly communion in a scheduled rotation among the three major churches in Geneva (1965, 50). Calvin continues his treatment of the Eucharist, and makes it plain that the purity of the Supper is paramount.29 To guard the sacrament, Calvin maintains that the church must enforce discipline and, if necessary, excommunication (1965, 50–51). But Calvin does not simply focus on negative, or corrective, discipline. He also recommends that the magistrates make a public profession of their faith, that psalm-singing be encouraged, and that children be catechized and examined (1965, 54). We see this same emphasis on catechesis and proper preparation for communion in the Draft Ecclesiastical Ordinances (1541).30 The section on the Eucharist begins with Calvin’s characteristic plea for frequency.31 Then it proceeds with what had become the “Genevan communion compromise,” recommending monthly observance.32 However, the Ordinances also stress the need for proper preparation and examination.33 Again, Calvin’s desire for frequent communion is carefully balanced by the conviction that we must come to communion adequately instructed and properly prepared.34

29

30 31 32

33

34

Such also was always the practice of the ancient Church [until the corruptions of the papal church,” (Calvin: 1965, 49). “But the principal rule that is required, and for which it is necessary to have the greatest care, is that this Holy Supper, ordained and instituted for joining the members of our Lord Jesus Christ with their Head and with one another in one body and one spirit, be not soiled and contaminated by those coming to it and communicating, who declare and manifest by their misconduct and evil life that they do not at all belong to Jesus. For in this profanation of his sacrament our Lord is gravely dishonoured,” (Calvin: 1965, 50). According to Reid, these Ordinances were first drafted by Calvin and the other ministers of Geneva in September, 1541, and then formally adopted by the Genevan magistrates in November (1965, 56). See also Maag: 2016, 148. “Since the Supper was instituted for us by our Lord to be frequently used, and also was so observed in the ancient Church until the devil turned everything upside down, erecting the mass in its place, it is a fault in need of correction, to celebrate it so seldom” (Calvin: 1965, 66). “Hence it will be proper that it be always administered in the city once a month, in such a way that every three months it take place in each parish. Besides, it should take place three times a year generally, that is to say at Easter, Pentecost and Christmas, in such a way that it be not repeated in the parish in the month when it should take place by turn” (Calvin: 1965, 67). “The Sunday before the celebration, intimation is to be made, in order that no child come before it has made profession of its faith as proved by examination by the Catechism, and also that all strangers and new-comers may be exhorted first to come and present themselves at the church, so that they be instructed and thus none approach to his own condemnation” (Calvin: 1991, 67). For concrete examples of the Consistory “fencing” the Table, see Maag: 2016, 152; 154.

Purity and Polity: Exploring Tensions in the Early Reformed Traditions

251

Karin Maag describes the Eucharistic patterns of Reformation Geneva: “The Genevan church year was shaped by the quarterly celebrations of the Lord’s Supper, at Christmas, at Easter, at Pentecost, and in September. Each Lord’s Supper service was preceded by a Sunday of preparation during which special sermons were preached in the churches” (Maag: 2016, 19). Prior to these four communions, the Genevan Consistory held special meetings to ensure that everyone repented of their sins and returned to fellowship with each other, and with the church. In 1550, the elders and other town officials visited houses before the Easter communion, questioning the residents about their readiness to participate in the communion (McKee: 2016, 264–266).35 So, for the purposes of this study, we may conclude that Calvin thought that weekly communion was ideal, but not essential (it could be either more or less often). However, Calvin held that spiritual preparation and self-examination were indispensable for proper participation in the Lord’s Supper. Late in life, Calvin wrote to another pastor: We are very pleased that the Supper is being celebrated every month [in your church], provided that this more frequent use does not produce carelessness. When a considerable part of the congregation stays away from communion, the church somehow becomes fragmented.36

McKee comments: Calvin was apparently cautioning this correspondent not to sacrifice unity for the sake of frequency. While he continued to protest against the small number of times the sacrament was offered, the pastor accepted this accommodation as preferable to a conflict which might destroy the church. He chose his battles and determined to take his stand on preparation and unity (McKee: 2016, 256–257).

5.

Conclusion

The relationship between church discipline and communion frequency highlights the sometimes uncomfortable dynamic within the Reformed tradition(s). Although the reformers uniformly advocated more frequent oral (as opposed to visual) communion than had been typical practice in the late-medieval church, they also argued, to varying degrees, for the implementation of church discipline. They did not simply argue for more frequent communion – they argued for more faithful frequent communion. For the reformers, faithful partaking of communion required true faith and a life of obedience. To ensure faithful partaking, the 35 See also Speelman: 2016, 216–20 for further descriptions of this last stage of the implemetation of Calvin’s mature ideals for church discipline. 36 Calvin: 1991, 96. Consilium, Aug. 12, 1561, OC 10:213.

252

Gregory Soderberg

reformers wrote catechisms and instituted set times and patterns for catechesis. They advocated pre-communion examinations by the elders. They also proposed various forms of church oversight, accountability, and disciplinary structures. Although reformers like Oecolampadius and Bucer did not live to see their ideals successfully implemented, it is important to remember and consider their views on discipline when we inquire about their views on communion frequency. In later debates, reformers were often appealed to in a simplistic fashion, which ignored the totality of their ecclesiological ideals and aspirations.37 The question of development in Calvin’s thought (e. g. is insistence on frequent communion something peculiar to the young Calvin?) seems to answered by the pastoral realities of his context. In other words, although Calvin seems to have remained committed to an ideal of weekly, or more frequent, communion, he was also willing to sacrifice frequency for due preparation. Purity, and the proper reception of communion, were priorities for Calvin. Appealing to the authority of “Calvin” reveals a peculiar dynamic. Robert Kingdon notes that: There are some interesting debates among the French reformed in the seventeenth century on the question of whether elders should be entitled to assist in administering communion. Both sides appealed to the authority of Calvin. [One side appealed to Calvin’s published writings, and the other appealed to his actual practice.] This is one point among many where it becomes clear that to understand the shape and nature of Calvin’s influence, we need to consider his ministry as well as his books (Kingdon: 1999, 178).

In a similar fashion, those who favor more frequent communion can appeal to many sources in Calvin’s writings, whereas those who oppose it can appeal to Calvin’s practice of catechism, examination before communion, and church discipline, as well as other instances in his writings where Calvin stresses purity and preparation. In conclusion, both proponents and opponents of weekly communion seem to appeal selectively to the reformers of the sixteenth century. More caution should be used, as well as remembering the original situations and challenges faced by the reformers. It does seem, however, that contemporary proponents of weekly communion have almost entirely turned away from the rigorous demands of spiritual preparation and church discipline espoused by the reformers. How do we determine which group is truly representing the ‘Reformed’ tradition, when we find differences of opinion in the reformers themselves? Are churches truly ‘Reformed’ if they practice weekly communion, but yet abandon the strict moral 37 In the communion frequency debates of 18th and 19th centuries in the Scottish Presbyterian church, we find frequent appeals to Calvin on this issue. See Randall: 1749, 29–31; Mason: 1798, 41–43; Brown: 1804, 7; Presbyterian: 1830, 33–36.

Purity and Polity: Exploring Tensions in the Early Reformed Traditions

253

guidelines and ecclesiastical control that Calvin also fought for? At a conference in Wittenberg, it is perhaps fitting to let Luther have the last word: Ask yourself whether you are showing love to your neighbors and serving them. If you do not find these evidences of faith within yourself, if you are living the same as before, still packed full of unfaithfulness, hatred, envy, wrath, and unbelief, then, dear friend, by all means stay away from the sacrament until you have become a different person.38

Bibliography Primary Sources Brown, John (1804), An Apology for the More Frequent Administration of the Lord’s Supper; with Answers to the Objections Urged Against It, Edinburgh: J. Ritchie. Bucer, Martin, Common Places of Martin Bucer, Courtenay Library of Reformation Classics 4, D.F. Wright (trans.), Appleford: The Sutton Courtenay Press, 1972. Calvin, John, Theological Treatises, Library of Christian Classics, Vol. XXII, J.K.S. Reid (trans.), Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1965. Calvin, John, Calvin’s Ecclesiastical Advice, Mary Beaty/Benjamin W. Farley (trans.), Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991. Mason, John (1798), Letters on Frequent Communion, New-York: T. & J. Swords. A Presbyterian (1830), View of the Mode of Celebrating the Lord’s Supper, in the Presbyterian Churches in Scotland; in Reference to the Fast and Other Days – Infrequency of Celebration – and Accomodation and Addresses at the Tables. With an Appendix, Edinburgh: John Wardlaw. Randall, Thomas (1749), A Letter from A Minister from his Friend, Concerning Frequent Communicating, Glasgow.

Secondary Literature Allen, Horace (1974), in: Worship 48, 580–594. Allmen, J.J. von (1965), Worship: Its Theology and Practice, Oxford University Press: New York. Baker, J. Wayne (1985), Church Discipline or Civil Punishment: On the Origins of the Reformed Schism, 1528–1531, Andrews University Seminary Studies 23/1, 18. Ballor, Jordan /Littlejohn, W. Bradford (2013), European Calvinism: Church Discipline, in: European History Online (EGO), accessed May 5 2017, http://www.ieg-ego. eu/ballorj-littlejohnw-2013-en. Benedict, Philip (2002), Christ’s Churches Purely Reformed: A Social History of Calvinism, New Haven: Yale University Press. 38 Von beider Gestalt des Sakraments zu nehmen, WA 10.II, 39, 1–13; LW 36, 264, quoted in: Hendrix: 2004, 40.

254

Gregory Soderberg

Bürki, Bruno (2005), The Reformed Tradition in Continental Europe, in: Geoffrey Wainwright/Karen B. Westerfield Tucker (ed.), The Oxford History of Christian Worship, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 442. Byars, Ronald P. (2014), Come and See: Presbyterian Congregations Celebrating Weekly Communion, Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 35–37. Cameron, James K. (1972), The First Book of Discipline, Edinburgh: The Saint Andrew Press. Campi, Emidio/Wälchli, Philipp (ed.) (2012), Basler Kirchenordnungen 1528–1675. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag. Falconer, Alan D. (2003), Word, Sacrament, and Communion: New Emphases in Reformed Worship in the Twentieth Century, in: Lukas Vischer (ed.), Christian Worship in Reformed Churches Past and Present, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 145–146. Fisher, Jeff (2009), The State of Research of the Basel Reformer, Johannes Oecolampadius with a Focus on the History of Biblical Interpretation, unpublished paper, accessed July 20, 2016, https://www.academia.edu/986421/The_State_of_Research_on_the_ Basel_Reformer_John_Oecolampadius_1482-1531_with_a_Focus_on_the_History_ of_Biblical_Interpretation. Fudge, Thomas A. (1997), Icarus of Basel? Oecolampadius and the Early Swiss Reformation, JRH 21/3, 268–284. Graham, Michael (1996), The Uses of Reform: ‘Godly Discipline’ and Popular Behavior in Scotland and Beyond, 1560–1610, Leiden/Boston: Brill. Hazlett, Ian (1975), The Development of Martin Bucer’s Thinking on the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper in its Historical and Theological Context, diss., Münster: Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität. Hendrix, Scott (2004), Recultivating the Vineyard: The Reformation Agendas of Christianization, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. Horton, Michael (2008), People and Place: A Covenant Ecclesiology, Louisville: Westminster John Knox. Jong, James A. De (1998), Calvin the Liturgist: How ‘Calvinist’ is Your Church’s Liturgy?, in: Reformed Worship 9. Johnson, Terry L. (2014), Worshipping with Calvin: Recovering the Historic Ministry and Worship of Reformed Protestantism, Welwyn Garden City, UK: EP Books. Kingdon, Robert M. (1999), The Genevan Revolution in Public Worship, in: Princeton Seminary Bulletin 20/3, 178. Kuhr, Olaf (1998), Calvin and Basel: The Significance of Oeclampadius and the Basel Discipline Ordinance for the Institution of Ecclesiastical Discipline in Geneva, Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 16, 23. Kuhr, Olaf (1999), Die Macht des Bannes und der Busse: Kirchenzucht und Erneuerung der Kirche bei Johannes Oekolampad (1482–1531), Bern/New York: P. Lang. Maag, Karin (2016), Lifting Hearts to the Lord: Worship with John Calvin in SixteenthCentury Geneva, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Matheson, Peter (1994), Martin Bucer and the Old Church, in: D. F. Wright (ed.), Martin Bucer: Reforming Church and Community, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 5– 16. Maxwell, William D. (1948), Concerning Worship, Oxford University Press: London.

Purity and Polity: Exploring Tensions in the Early Reformed Traditions

255

McKee, Elsie Ann (2016), The Pastoral Ministry and Worship in Calvin’s Geneva, Genéve: Droz. Miller, Ed L. (1982), Oecolampadius: The Unsung Hero of the Basel Reformation, IliffRev. 39/3, 5–24. Meyers, Jeffrey J. (2003), The Lord’s Service: The Grace of Covenant Renewal Worship, Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 115–116. Nelson Burnett, Amy (1991), Church Discipline and Moral Reformation in the Thought of Martin Bucer, SCJ 22/3, 438–456. Nelson Burnett, Amy (1994), The Yoke of Christ: Martin Bucer and Christian Discipline, Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies, vol. 26, Kirksville: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers. Nelson Burnett, Amy (2006), Teaching the Reformation. Ministers and Their Message in Basel, 1529–1629, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nichols, James Hastings (1968), Corporate Worship in the Reformed Tradition, Philadelphia: Westminster Press. Old, Hughes Oliphant (2013), Holy Communion in the Piety of the Reformed Church, Jon Payne (ed.), Powder Springs, GA: Tolle Lege Press. Piotrowski, Nicholas (2012), Johannes Oecolampadius: Christology and the Supper, MAJT 23, 131–137. Rubin, Miri (1991), Corpus Christi: The Eucharist in Late Medieval Culture, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rupp, Gordon (1969), Patterns of Reform, Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Schaff, Philip (1910), History of the Christian Church, vol. 8, 3rd ed., New York: Scribner’s, reprint: Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977. Speelman, Herman (2014), Calvin and the Independence of the Church, RHT 25, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Speelman, Herman (2016), Melanchthon and Calvin on Confession and Communion: Early Modern Protestant Penitential and Eucharistic Piety, R5AS, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Spijker, Willem van ’t (1996), The Ecclesiastical Offices in the Thought of Martin Bucer, John Vriend/Lyle D. Bierma (trans.), Leiden: Brill. Spijker, Willem van ’t (1994), Bucer’s influence on Calvin, in: D.F. Wright (ed.), Martin Bucer: Reforming Church and Community, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 36–37. Staehelin, Ernst (1939), Das Theologische Lebenswerk Johannes Oekolampads, QFR 21, New York: Johnson. Staehelin, Ernst (ed.) (1927), Briefe Und Akten Zum Leben Oekolampads: Zum Vierhundertjahrigen Jubilaum der Basler Reformation herausgegeben von der Theologischen Fakultät der Universitat Basel, QFR, vol. 10; vol. 19, Leipzig: Eger & Sievers, reprint: New York/London: Johnson, 1971. Thompson, Bard (1961), Liturgies of the Western Church, Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Thompson, Nicholas (2003), Martin Bucer, in: Lee Palmer Wandel (ed.), A Companion to the Eucharist in the Reformation, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 75–95. Vander Zee, Leonard J. (2004), Christ, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper: Recovering the Sacraments for Evangelical Worship, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

256

Gregory Soderberg

White, James (1989), Protestant Worship: Traditions in Transition, Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox. Wolterstorff, Nicholas (1992), The Reformed Liturgy, in: Donald McKim (ed.), Major Themes in the Reformed Tradition, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 295.

Herman A. Speelman

The Calvinistic Reformation and the Rise of Pluralism in Europe

Introduction There was much in Europe that had been overturned by the Renaissance, Humanism, and the Protestant Reformation, and one such thing was the relationship between church and state, or ecclesial and civil government. Through reforms introduced to large parts of the German empire, starting in the 1520s under Charles V, for example, church life became increasingly controlled by the civil authorities, at the expense of the empire’s religious unity (the Reformation of the Princes). Similarly, under the leadership of the civil government, several Swiss cantons opted for a radical renewal in church life (the City Reformation). And in the 1530s, during the rule of Henry VIII, the Act of Supremacy severed the Church of England from Rome. The shock following an event in the autumn of the same year 1534 caused the French royal house, at first open to change, to increasingly oppose the new teaching in a desperate attempt to safeguard the unity of church and society. Through the influence of Protestantism, religious diversity slowly grew in the early modern period. Although church and state introduced numerous measures in an attempt to channel the developments, they failed to stop the process of change in its tracks. This resulted in a number of violent conflicts, such as the Peasant War of 1525 and the Schmalkaldic War of 1547 in Germany, the Kappel Wars of 1529 and 1531 in Switzerland, and in France the eight Wars of Religion from 1562 to 1598 (MacCullogh: 2003, part 1; Daussy: 2015, 569–767). During the course of this same period, numerous religious dialogues were held between Protestants and Catholics as well as among Protestants, but rarely did they come to a satisfactory conclusion. In this paper on The Calvinistic Reformation and the Rise of Pluralism in Europe, I would like to examine whether, and to what extent, the French Calvinists deliberately enforced the dissolution of the close ties between church and state, thus preparing the way for separation of these two jurisdictions, something that has become so characteristic in Europe. By contrast, in the great German

258

Herman A. Speelman

empire, comprising many small states, every prince had, since the Peace of Augsburg (1555), been free to choose between Roman Catholicism and Lutheranism, although the ruler did have to make a choice between the two. The Huguenots in France longed for some religious freedom and, for that reason, made room for religious pluralism, at the expense of the ecclesiastical unity in the French society. To what extent did they take that road deliberately, and to what extent were they forced into it by circumstances? And how does this early Reformational church constituent process touch on the identity of the European soul? Guided by these urgent questions, we turn to that phase of the Reformation, emerging from Paris, and examine how the pursuit of a more sovereign position for the Protestant church in the great Kingdom of France served to promote religious plurality and freedom.

The Formation of Religious Plurality in France In France it soon became apparent that the French Reformed (i. e., the Huguenots) were intent on establishing an ecclesiastical organization of their own, a national synodical alliance, without the approval of the state. In retrospect, the decision taken by the first national synod of Paris in late May 1559 to establish a national confession without approval from the state formed a turning point in European history. Towards the end of the 1550s, the growing Calvinist movement in France longed very much for the end of the persecutions and chose to unite itself in a structured organization in order to survive these times of heavy persecution. The implicit assumption behind this pursued organization was that the federated local evangelical communities constituted a lawful church alongside the Roman Catholic Church, in spite of the absence of government recognition. In the month of May 1559, the synod had no realistic prospect whatsoever for better days, and yet the Huguenots were convinced that they could no longer simply stand by and watch. The leading ministers and nobles in France no longer avoided the confrontation. They had a specific goal in mind, and also in the following years they stayed the course, namely, to obtain from the Roman Catholic government recognition for two denominations and confessions within a single state. We will see that the direction they went, namely advocating that two churches with distinct confessions coexist in one kingdom, was of great significance for the future of Europe.

The Calvinistic Reformation and the Rise of Pluralism in Europe

259

The Huguenots Were Ready for a Modest, Subordinate Position The new generation of Huguenots, after a long period of persecutions, wanted its voice to be heard, by example through the meetings organized from 13 to 16 May 1559 at the Pré-aux-Clercs in Paris, where some 4,000 Huguenots held evenings of Psalm singing “under the protection of nobles and their servants.” Similar meetings had been organized a year earlier outside the Saint-Antoine and Saint-Victor gates, but this meeting in May 1559 was better organized (Léonard: 1961, 98). Those who participated in these peaceful manifestations were not driven by a revolutionary spirit but rather by their desire for the freedom of assembly and for the termination of the persecutions which in those days were increasing. At this time, the number of converts to the Reformed confession was growing rapidly, and the clandestine meetings on occasion assumed a somewhat provocative form. The preparations of the formation of a first national synod, which took place in Paris at the end of May 1559 for some four or five days, were undertaken in the greatest of secrecy, since this plan amounted to a conscious transgression of the government policy and would elicit a sharp response if it were to become known. The synod was held only two months after France and Spain, after being at war with each other during most of the sixteenth century, had decided to join hands in the effort to wipe out Protestantism. When this Peace of Cateau-Cambrésis was agreed upon on 3 April 1559, it represented an immediate threat to the Protestants living in France. By the end of the month, the French king Henry II enacted new laws envisioning the persecution of the Protestant heretics. The French state was thus increasingly applying a policy of direct confrontation. In fact, France and Spain pondered the possibility of a joint attack on Geneva in an effort to turn the tides and to restore unity in church and state. The Huguenots saw no other option than to enter into a mild, diplomatic, yet ‘radical’, confrontation with the government. The day after the synod, in May 1559, Admiral Gaspard de Coligny, a high-ranking Calvinist nobleman, met with the English ambassador Throckmorton in Paris (Forbes: 1740, 115). As early as 7 June, rumours had already started circulating “about a plan to present a confession to the king” (CO 17, no. 3062, 535), and on 13 June the English ambassador sent Queen Elizabeth a copy of the new French confession, reporting that “a nobleman” had attempted “to exhibit to the King their confession” (Forbes: 1740, 128). It was not until 13 June 1559 that Throckmorton sent a copy of the confession to Knight, the Queen’s secretary, from Paris: “The said Admyrall, in conducting of Mr. Wotton and me to the churche of Nostredame, toke occasion to question with me toching the state of religion in England.” He had been absent at the Mass, but “was ready after to bring us home

260

Herman A. Speelman

againe” (Forbes: 1740, 115).1 In other words, shortly after the end of the synod, the confession was no longer a secret document, as expressly requested by Calvin, but circulated in the upper levels of society. Calvin disagreed altogether with the course of events. In Calvin’s way of thinking it was dangerous for the Reformed to gain a reputation as rebels (CO 17, no. 3056, 526), but above all, it was simply unthinkable for two churches to exist side by side in one state. He insisted on the unity of the Church and on the unity of church and state, which for centuries had been founded on a religious unity. To Calvin it was of primal importance for the churches in France to retain their clandestine character until the tides turned. For that reason, Calvin, from late 1559 on, did not cease to demand attention for his view on the developments in the Reformed church in France and on the status of the Reformed confession there, and to warn his coreligionists that they should be wary of holding such wily discussions with the opponents of “the true religion”, both moderates and radicals (CO 18, no. 3485, 616; 619; 620). This disagreement revealed two conflicting views on church and confession (CO 9, 731f; CO 17, no. 3122, 652–653). The solution desired by the Reformed in France, however, would prove highly influential in large parts of Western Europe.

The First Edict of Tolerance Ten months after their first synod, the leading Huguenots, who felt that their cause was not only religious but also political, presented their printed confession to the court in Amboise, and the Protestant movement received a certain status of toleration with the first edict of toleration that was promulgated on 11 March 1560. The Huguenots asked the queen mother, Catherine de Medici, through their spokesman De Coligny and others, for permission to be able to come together for worship until the time of “a holy and free council, general or national, at which all will be able to account for themselves” (Bèze: 1883, 30; see also: Speelman: forthcoming). This alluded to the request that had been made by the Roman Catholics for the convocation of a council under the leadership of the pope. The French Protestants wanted to be heard in a free and open council, but the pope – who may have been afraid that a similar schism would take place as in the Church of England under Henry VIII – did not want his prelates to enter into discussion with the Calvinists. Accordingly, he thwarted the plans for a national French council. 1 The French admiral Gaspard de Coligny (1519–1572), who was released from Spanish imprisonment, made a radical choice for Reformed Protestantism that year.

The Calvinistic Reformation and the Rise of Pluralism in Europe

261

After the death of King Henry II in June 1559, the first edict of toleration of March 1560 gave an enormous boost to French Calvinism, which received another boost later that same month from the victory of the Protestants in Scotland. Reformed Protestantism now became an increasingly self-assured and well-organized European movement.

The Search for a Diplomatic Solution At the French court, the question regarding a policy of reconciliation gradually grew in importance. The former policy of persecution had passed, and under the leadership of the new chancellor, Michel de l’Hôpital, a new policy was introduced. L’Hôpital soon showed himself to be the leading spokesman at the court for the moyenneur-party. Like the Huguenots, the more moderate or ‘moyenneurs’ were ready to meet with the different parties; both parties favored a peaceful solution to the conflict. Contrary to the Huguenots, however, the moyenneurs were intent on keeping the different groups within the one established church, at all costs. It is not necessary to pay much attention to the view maintained by the hardline Calvinists and the more traditional supporters of the established church. Both were marked by an implacability, as they were both fundamentally oriented towards a national religious monopoly. To l’Hôpital it was in that time inconceivable for two opposing religions to be able to live together in peace. He was well known for his remark that a Frenchman and an Englishman with the same religion can understand each other better than two citizens from the same city but of a different religion. This statement was not motivated merely by the close ties between French and English Protestants. His statement also confirmed the commonly held view that a kingdom ought to be united in religion. At that time, France was not a true political unity. France was, after all, partly in British hands, and further included a number of more or less independent kingdoms and noble families.2 Therefore, maintaining religious unity was of prime importance with a view to the unity of the French nation as a whole. Otherwise France would be the first kingdom or empire in the Western world, whether small or large, to have two officially recognized churches. L’Hôpital’s statement at the assembly of the Estates General in Orléans in December 1560, in which he highlighted the importance of religious unity for the entire kingdom, is to be understood against this background. The French government did not want the kingdom to crumble along the lines of religious confession as had happened in the German empire. The queen mother, Catherine de 2 At that time there were three great dynasties in France: the De Bourbons in the West, Montmorency in the Centre (to whom De Coligny also belonged), and the De Guises in the East.

262

Herman A. Speelman

Medici, as well as the chancellor, Michel de l’Hôpital, together with many others of the moyenneur-party, were open to the proposals of the Huguenots. The moyenneurs and the French Calvinists were both interested in seeking a solution to the growing religious controversies in France through dialogue. L’Hôpital did not look upon the Reformed as heretics, “since the entire difference is that they want to reform the church in the spirit of the early church.”3 However, while the moyenneurs wanted to bring the differing religious currents together so that they could continue to function within a single ecclesiastical structure, the Huguenots no longer considered this a feasible option. Concretely, this meant that they sought some form of recognition on the part of the government, that is, a modest place in society alongside the large state church.

The Huguenots Continued to Exercise Political Pressure With the explosive growth of the Calvinist church its sense of self-worth mounted, as did the awareness that it had indeed chosen the right course earlier, in May 1559. But this growth also created a new level of political tensions, both internal and external. As a result, the opponents of the Reformation felt threatened. On Easter 1561 (6 April), they joined hands and formed an antiProtestant triumvirate consisting of the duke François de Guise, the Constable (connétable) Anne de Montmorency, and the marshal Jacques d’Albon de SaintAndré. This triumvirate started to organize violent repercussions (Diefendorf: 1991). The negative position vis-à-vis the Huguenots became visible in the edict proclaimed on 11 July 1561, the last day of the meeting of the Estates General in Pontoise, in which their request for permission to assemble in freedom until the convocation of a council or religious colloquy was voted down. Every assembly that did not follow the Roman Catholic tradition was forbidden, and transgressors faced the prospect of banishment (Speelman: 2014, 180–200; Speelman: 2017, 36–47). The French court was aware that the nation was “so terribly divided” by the different confessions that it threatened to fall apart into two groups and to divide church and state. According to l’Hôpital, the consequence could be the “total destruction and fall of this kingdom” (Bèze: 1883, 557). For that reason Catharina de Medici and her advisers persisted in their plans to organize a meeting in the form of a religious dialogue under the leadership of the King, yet without the status of an official council. 3 “[T]out leur différend est en cela qu’ils veulent que l’eglise soit réformée en la façon de la primitive” (Buisson: 1950, 189).

The Calvinistic Reformation and the Rise of Pluralism in Europe

263

The Colloquy of Poissy In the fall of 1561, the long-awaited religious dialogue took place in the Dominican priory at Poissy. Theologically, the colloquy of Poissy was a failure, and it is entirely possible that the conservative Roman Catholics consciously aimed to effect such a failure. All the same, Poissy was not without effect for the Calvinists. In the course of these weeks after the colloquy much national and international attention had been directed to their cause. They were given an opportunity to plead their case before a forum of high-ranking nobles and bishops, and the speeches held by representatives of both sides were immediately published. Both sides turned Poissy into a large scale propagandistic campaign. For the Calvinists, Poissy meant that their cause received the attention for which they had been longing. In their perception, the entire European world was tensely awaiting its outcome. Beza witnessed to this perception in the oration he held before the queenmother, Catharina de Medici, on 26 September 1561, when he remarked that he spoke “in the name of a million people in this kingdom, in Switzerland, Poland, Germany, England, and Scotland, who are all waiting in expectation for a good outcome from this assembly” (Bèze: 1883, 659). This national assembly represented a final attempt on the part of the political leaders and representatives of the established church, together with the Calvinists, to seek a common solution for the existing religious conflicts and, if at all possible, to maintain the unity of the French nation. To that end, the government invited the opposing parties to seek a way to restore unity within the church “in order to reunite them to the church of Rome” (de les réunir à l’Eglise Romaine) (Bèze: 1883, 521). Antoine de Bourbon, the King of Navarre, who was well-disposed towards the Protestants, spoke in a letter of “supplying a contribution for the formulation of a good agreement,” so that a solution might be found for France’s growing religious problems (CO 18, no. 3477 [12 August 1561], 606). On behalf of the moyenneurs, Michel de l’Hôpital, on the first day of the colloquy, observed that all means – with or without violence – for preserving the unity of the French church had been exhausted. But the nation was “so terribly divided by the diversity of views” that it threatened to fall apart into two separate groups and to tear church and state apart. The final outcome could be the “complete ruin and subversion of this state” (Bèze: 1883, 557). If the disputation failed, it might mean that the prospect of reconciliation between the established church in France and the French Calvinist movement was further away than ever. This would, in turn, imply that the Huguenots had been right when they claimed that the government had no other feasible option than to

264

Herman A. Speelman

give the Calvinist church some degree of religious freedom, and to recognise it as a second church in France alongside the established church.

Chancellor Michel de l’Hôpital The Huguenots felt that a peaceful solution was closer at hand than ever before. The hopes for recognition in the form of an agreement with the government were increasing. Beza expected that “at the very least the justice of our cause” would be recognized (Bèze: 1963, no. 197, 178). With this, the ideal harbored by the Huguenots of obtaining a certain recognition from the government, as well as some religious freedom accompanied by a certain form of independence, seemed more than ever within reach. After Poissy, l’Hôpital had made a radical turn in his thinking on religious policy, and now inclined towards the position of the party of Coligny. The road of dialogue had failed. The final outcome of all these discussions was that l’Hôpital came to realize that church unity was no longer possible. Both at Orléans and at Poissy he had failed to bring the different groups together. In the wake of the colloquy of Poissy, it had become clear that the original pursuit by the moyenneurs to keep the different religious currents together within a single church was no longer feasible. Thus, after Poissy, the moderate leaders at court were ready to seek a solution to the religious conflict that was more in line with the Huguenot proposals. L’Hôpital did not think in terms of a religious compromise anymore, but of a political one. He thus proposed a modus vivendi, a realizable agreement that would make it possible for the two churches to dwell alongside one another in peace. L’Hôpital made this radical turn in his thinking within a short span of time by stating that “a person is a Frenchman regardless of his confession” (Nürnberger: 1948, 131–132). The unfeasibility of ecclesiastical unity in a single church now represented a political reality for l’Hôpital. He therefore opted for a different foundation to his religious policy. The solution to the religious controversies in France was no longer to be sought “in a religious measure, but in a political one” (Buisson: 1950, 196).4 It had to be possible “to live in freedom with those who do not observe the same ceremonies as we do” (Doumergue: 1927, 272). This solution implied that the government would have to recognize the Calvinist church, and that two churches would exist side by side in the kingdom of France. 4 L’Hôpital uses a formula with which he introduced a major innovation in political discourse: “Le roy ne veut point que vous entriez en dispute quelle opinion est la meilleure, car il n’est pas ici question de constituenda Religione, sed de constituenda Respublica. Et plusieurs peuvent estre Cives, qui non erunt Christiani. Mesmes un excommunié ne laisse pas d’estre citoyen.” (Hospital: 2002, 439, quoted from Daussy: 2015, 276).

The Calvinistic Reformation and the Rise of Pluralism in Europe

265

The new edict of Saint-Germain on 17 January 1562, the so-called January edict, a decree of tolerance, which followed soon after, would be an important step on the way to this religious pluralism. This would show itself to be an important first step worldwide on the road to confessional and ecclesiastical plurality – and, as a result, to the separation of church and state.

The Beginning of Religious Plurality at Saint-Germain The Edict of Saint-Germain of the French court offered the Reformed some space, a modest form of religious liberty on condition that they would work closely together with the government. The edict consisted of fourteen articles (Bèze: 1883, 752–762. Amphoux: 1900, 241–244).5 To this text, the leaders of the Calvinist church appended a letter together with a commentary on the articles to inform their more than two thousand churches.6 According to the terms of this agreement, the Reformed could remain Reformed in a Roman Catholic country and have worship meetings outside the cities if they adhered to all kinds of specific conditions. This final agreement clearly differed from what the moyenneurs had initially envisioned, for there would no longer be just one church in the kingdom of France. The Huguenots had thus been able to convince l’Hôpital of their vision. Accordingly, an exception was created for the new church in the laws of the French nation. The Calvinist churches now enjoyed the protection of the state, and this protection included some form of official recognition. From then on, French society would tolerate a second church in addition to the official state church. The monarchy deviated from its course by renouncing the religious unity of the realm; and the principle ‘One King, One Law, One Faith’, still advocated by l’Hôpital in 1560, was changed into: Un roi, une loi, deux fois. The January edict was an agreement allowing two churches to exist side by side under one government. It was a unique arrangement, because nothing like it could be found in any other European country; in Germany and in certain Swiss regions, some territories had stepped over to the Reformation, while others did not. In France the people could, as of January 1562, go to different churches without fear of persecution. A citizen remained a citizen even if he was ex5 The tension increased in the first days of January 1562. See the Actes du synode provincial à Meaux with the orders of the admiral, that “chacune Eglise ait à faire [au roi] quelque offre de gens de pied et de cheval pour le secourir et défendre”, Lettre des députés des églises à la cour aux églises de France and Requête présentée au roi Charles IX par les députés réformées pour avoir des temples (Benedict/Fornerod: 2015, 124–137; 137–138; 138–142). 6 The advice of the “Ministres et Deputez des Eglises de France” of 17 January 1562 has been printed in Bèze: 1883, 762–766.

266

Herman A. Speelman

communicated by the church, as l’Hôpital remarked. The way was now open for citizenship to be disconnected from membership in a church. The great price paid for this limited degree of freedom and for government recognition of the Reformed church, however, was the demise of religious unity in church and state. Under the leadership of the statesman l’Hôpital, the policy of persecution against the Calvinists as heretics was brought to an end. In its place came a largescale Roman Catholic propagandistic offensive that received a boost from the Council of Trent, which met once again, beginning in January 1562, and by the wars of religion, the first of which was to break out in March of that same year. In the end, after eight wars of religion, the Edict of Nantes would be promulgated in 1598 without essential differences to the edict of toleration from the Januaryedict of 1562 that offered them a very modest position. But due to a shift in church polity in France some substantial changes occurred with great influence in the other parts of the world. In an extremely complex situation of religious diversity, without the unity of ancient Catholic monoculture, the sixteenth century had to find again a form living together peacefully, and they had to once again define the relationship between church and state, as for example ten years later in the Netherlands.7 1562 is the year in which religious plurality first took shape in the Western world (Speelman: 2014, 200–207).8

Conclusion From 1559 on, the Huguenots began more and more consciously to distance themselves from the ecclesiastical unity in France. Such a situation, in which a church established itself without the involvement of the government, was entirely unique, so that the Huguenots had achieved a point of no return. The familiar, age-old notion of a European Christendom guided by the church, whose pastoral care and rituals structured and disciplined the whole life, as well as the notion of the corpus christianum – all of this was more or less changed in Reformation times, although it had already begun in the time leading up to that. The official recognition of ecclesiastical and confessional plurality in France in the 1560s meant the undoing of the existing spiritual bond with a

7 Philip Benedict brings the outcome of the Reformed church settlement into the Netherlands on a formula: “The Reformed church became the state-supported public church while claiming only a minority of the population as full-fledged members and allowing large numbers of citizens to live outside its discipline and communion” (Benedict: 2002, 174). 8 Two Swiss cantons form an exception. After the defeat of the Reformed Confederates in the Battle of Kappel of 1531, Appenzell and St Gallen/Toggenburg remained territories with two confessions equal in status and with equal rights (Bryner: 2016, 250; 253; 262).

The Calvinistic Reformation and the Rise of Pluralism in Europe

267

special form of religion in society, which had, for many centuries, been formed from a communal religious basis.

Bibliography Primary Sources Bèze, Théodore de, attribuée souvent à (1883), Histoire ecclésiastique des Églises Réformées au Royaume de France, Johann W. Baum/August E. Cunitz/Rodolphe E. Reuss (ed.), vol. 1, Paris: Fischbacher. Bèze, Théodore de (1963), Correspondance de Théodore de Bèze, Hippolyte Aubert/ Alain Dufour/Henri Meylan et al. (ed.), Travaux d’Humanisme et Renaissance 61, vol. 3, Genève: Droz.

Secondary Literature Amphoux, Henri (1900), Michel de L’Hôpital et la liberté de conscience au XVIe siècle, Paris: Librairie Fischbacher. Benedict, Philip (2002), Christ’s Churches Purely Reformed: A Social History of Calvinism, New Haven/London: Yale University Press. Benedict, Philip/Fornerod, Nicolas (ed.) (2012), L’organisation et l’action des églises réformées de France (1557–1562): Synodes provinciaux et autre documents, Genève: Droz. Bryner, Erich (2016), The Reformation in St. Gallen and Appenzell, in: Christopher M. Bellitto (ed.), A Companion to the Swiss Reformation, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 238–263. Buisson, Albert (1950), Michel de l’Hospital 1503–1573, Paris: Hachette. Chareyre, Philippe/Mentzer, Raymond A. (2016), Organizing the Churches and Reforming Society, in: Raymond A. Mentzer/Bertrand Van Ruymbeke (ed.), A Companion to the Huguenots, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 17–42. Daussy, Hugues (2015), Le parti Huguenot: Chronique d’une désillusion (1557–1572), 2nd ed., Genève: Droz. Daussy, Hugues (2016), Huguenot Political Thought and Activities, in: Raymond A. Mentzer/Bertrand Van Ruymbeke (ed.), A Companion to the Huguenots, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 66–89. Diefendorf, Barbara B. (1991), The Intensification of Religious Hatres, 1557–1562, in: Barbara B. Diefendorf (ed.), Beneath the Cross. Catholics and Huguenots in SixteenthCentury Paris, New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 49–63. Doumergue, Emile (1927), Jean Calvin: les hommes et les choses de son temps, vol. 7, Lausanne: Bridel. Forbes, Patrick (1740), A full view of the public transactions in the reign of Q. Elizabeth, vol. 1, London: G. Hawkins.

268

Herman A. Speelman

Hospital, Michel de l’ (2002), Harangue prononcée devant l’assemblée politique de Saint-Germain, 3 janvier 1562, in: Loris Petris (ed.), La plume et la tribune: Michel de L’Hospital et ses discours (1559–1562), Genève: Droz. Léonard, Emile G. (1961), Histoire ge´ne´rale du protestantisme, vol. 1, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. MacCulloch, Diarmaid (2003), Reformation: Europe’s House divided 1460–1700, London: Allen Lane. Monter, William (2007), France: The Failure of Repression, 1520–1563, in: Philip Benedict/Silvana Seidel Menchi/Alain Tallon (ed.), La réforme en France et en Italie. Contacts, comparaisons et contrastes, Rome: École Française de Rome, 465–479. Nürnberger, Richard (1948), Die Politisierung des französischen Protestantismus: Calvin und die Anfänge des protestantischen Radikalismus, Tübingen: Mohr. Speelman, Herman A. (2014), Calvin and the Independence of the Church, RHT 25, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Speelman, Herman A. (2017), Inleiding, in: Antoine de la Roche Chandieu, De verdediging van het gereformeerde kerkmodel, Apeldoorn: Labarum Academic, 13–70. Speelman, Herman A. (forthcoming), From Assembly of Believers to an Official Institute: Church Discipline in France in the 1560s, in: Anna Vind (ed.), On ’Church’ at the time of the Reformation: Invisible community, visible parish, confession, building, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Trimp, David J.B. (2011), The Huguenots and the European Wars of Religion, c.1560– 1697: Soldiering in National and Transnational Context, in Robert J. Bast (ed.), The Huguenots: History and Memory in Transnational Context. Essays in Honour and Memory of Walter C. Utt, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 153–192. Venard, Marc (2007), Église, deux Églises, pas d’Église? Le cas Français, in: Philip Benedict/Silvana Seidel Menchi/Alain Tallon (ed.), La réforme en France et en Italie: Contacts, comparaisons et contrastes, Rome: École Francaise de Rome, 479–593.

Izabela Winiarska-Górska

Secularization of Ducal Prussia and the Polish Literary Language in the Sixteenth Century – Two Models of Modernization of a Religious Discourse

Among the crucial issues in diachronic linguistics there are considerations about the rise and development of literary languages. The term literary language refers to a standard, usually national language variety that is used in areas broader than predominantly spoken common communication in vernacular dialects (Lewaszkiewicz: 2017).1 Historian of the Polish language Tadeusz Lewaszkiewicz (2017) argues that scholars who have undertaken the problem of rising Slavic literary languages have given decisive priority to their dialectal origins. The evidence of standardisation is often reduced to enumerating distinctive features of dialectal substrates of given languages. In newer studies, however, more attention is paid to effects of cultural and linguistic factors stimulating the functional fitness of the general national language as a tool for communication in high culture. As Tadeusz Lewaszkiewicz (2017) states: The literary language formation process consists in enhancing the general functional and linguistic efficiency (i. e. the lexical, syntactic and stylistic efficiency) of unrefined dialectal substrates and the development of supradialectal language standards. As it appears, at the outset of the process the most important issue is the increase of general linguistic efficiency which is the main, or sole, feature distinguishing the nascent literary language from purely popular speech, since tendencies to standardise arise only later, gradually becoming one of the determinants of a language’s literary character (Lewaszkiewicz: 2017, 32).

Interesting examples of growing awareness of literary language in its standard and religious registers, are to be encountered in Ducal Prussia (then a Polish fiefdom) during Albrecht Hohenzollern’s (1490–1568) rule, where due to the secularization of the Teutonic Order in 1525, the legal patronage of the Lutheran Church was held by the state. In relation to that remains the first linguistic 1 Polish literary language developed starting from the twelfth / thirteenth century, however it gained its functional fitness in the sixteenth century. With regard to the medieval phase of Polish the term literary language refers in general to a written variety of the language which includes liturgical and religious writing in the vernacular language.

270

Izabela Winiarska-Górska

polemic about the Polish language concerning both detailed issues and the general assumptions of religious discourse that took place in the second half of the sixteenth century in Prussia. Historians of the Polish language (Warmin´ski: 1906; Rospond: 1949; Klemensiewicz: 2007) describe it as the first normative polemics between a publisher Jan Seklucjan (1510?–1578), a translator Stanisław Murzynowski (1527–1553) and an editor Jan Sandecki-Malecki (1482–1567).2 All three were working in Königsberg, printing catechisms (1544–1548) and the New Testament (1551–1553). Their contradictory lines of thinking about the vernacular language in religious discourse are especially evident and comprehensible in the Gospel of Matthew (1551) translated by Stanisław Murzynowski (edited by Jan Seklucjan) and revised by Jan Sandecki-Malecki.3 My considerations are focused on providing examples of how Lutheranism, which was developing in Ducal Prussia in the sixteenth century as an official state denomination stimulated the Polish language in both registers mentioned above – literary (i. e. standard) and religious. Referring to the documents of religious life I try to reconstruct the attitudes of Polish writers and editors toward religious literature printed in Polish. Their mind-set concerning vernacular languages had religious motivation but linguistic effects. I include the most distinctive examples pertaining to the general shape and form of translation, the foundations of translation with respect to veritas graeca and latinitas as well as the Polish lexicon, grammar and style of utterances. The problem of vernacular language in the multilingual Prussian environment seems interesting for a historian of the Polish Protestant religious discourse4 as 2 In 1544, Jan Seklucjan, a preacher who had converted to Lutheranism, then a Protestant publisher and writer, printed his own text of Wyznanie wiary chrzes´cijan´skiej (Confession of Christian Faith), modelled upon the Western Protestant Confessions. The following year, he edited the catechism Katechizmu tekst prosty dla prostego ludu (Simple Text of the Catechism for the Common People). These publications gained a wide response and were reedited and distributed all over Prussia and also in Poland. After Jan Seklucjan’s publications, similar editions appeared made by the esteemed editor from Cracow, Jan Sandecki-Malecki, who converted to Lutheranism and settled down in Prussian Ełk as a Lutheran minister. Like other printers, he hoped to run his own printing house. He criticised the spelling of all Seklucjan’s publications, as well as his annotations attached to the Gospel of Matthew (1551–1553), made at the request of Albrecht Hohenzollern. This began a long-lasting debate concerning linguistic, spelling, and theological issues. It is known as the first normative polemic about Polish language standards and has been described by scholars (Warmin´ski: 1906; Rospond: 1949; cf. Winiarska-Górska: 2018 in press). 3 The first Polish printed New Testament translation replicated the model of humanistic editions and applied the philological apparatus to the national language in order to enable hermeneutic interpretation. Murzynowski’s translation refers to the Greek edition of the New Testament made by Erasmus of Rotterdam (1522), he used Nikolas Brylinger’s 1543 edition (Czermiantowicz: 1969). 4 I define the Protestant religious discourse as a kind of linguistic social practice, serving to express the meanings and values created by the religious community. Participants of given

Secularization of Ducal Prussia and the Polish Literary Language

271

the rivalry of Sandecki-Malecki and Stanisław Murzynowski and Jan Seklucjan reveals also two opposed attitudes toward a national language used for the purposes of religious communication: one that I have called a stimulating and supporting oriented attitude and the other oriented only towards sustaining (upholding) the vernacular language. Those two orientations have their manifestations in the New Testament translation printed in parts in 1551–1553 which is the main base of my paper. At the root of both attitudes were Albrecht’s conceptions of the Lutheranisation of Prussia. After the secularisation of the Teutonic Order in 1525, in Ducal Prussia during Albrecht Hohenzollern’s rule Königsberg became a centre of Lutheran education. Strongly based on humanistic ideas, the local university was founded in 1544. The Duke established 24 scholarships, seven of which were dedicated to the Poles (Małłek: 2013). Among its students we meet names of outstanding Polish poets, writers, scholars, and the New Testament translators, i. e. Stanisław Murzynowski and probably Marcin Czechowic (1532–1613). Most of them continued their education in Wittenberg. The education of the Lutheran elite with a multilingual background was an important part of the Duke’s plan to secularise his lands.5 On the other hand, the Duke’s ambition was to first of all to equip every parish with indispensable books. Catechisms and hymnals (called cantionals)6 were to be available in German, Polish, and Lithuanian. The religious literature printed for that purpose should be both comprehensible and useful. That determined the current and colloquial style. In 1525, Duke Albrecht promulgated Articles of Ceremonies, the following passage of which answers the common requests to access the Bible in translation: Above all, in compliance with the principle of sola scriptura, instead of reading only small fragments of the Holy Scriptures during mass as in the Catholic Church, it was recommended to read, in the native language, whole passages systematically, so that they would become known in full to the faithful. Services were, then, to take place in German, the language used in Königsberg and in many other towns. However, Latin was allowed in some places in the liturgy, both word and song, so as not to decrease the interest of young people in this language. It was explained by the fact that the country had many non-Germans and in order for them to be able to take an active part the services, a little Latin had to be left (Małłek: 2013, 293). discourse must accept its rules, share the same values and keep the same cognitive perspective. That is why the discourse can be also characterised as a mode of organizing not only texts but also the knowledge and ideas (cf., e. g., Fairclough, Wodak: 1997). 5 Although his son, Albert Frederick, spoke Polish fluently, due to mental illness the cultural interferences between Poland and Prussia were gradually ceasing after Albrecht’s death. 6 The term kancyjonał || kancjonał was assimilated by the Polish language in the sixteenth century, and it became a common appellation of Protestant hymnals, so that was regarded as a distinctive term for Polish Protestant discourse. In the Catholic tradition the usual term has been kos´cielny ´spiewnik (church song-book) (Winiarska: 2004).

272

Izabela Winiarska-Górska

The first article of the Prussian Ustawa (Agenda of the Church) from 1525 follows this reasoning, ordering that the people should learn the Bible directly and accurately. The Church introduced two modes of teaching the Pure Word of God – the customary mode, that is, readings of pericopes, epistles, lessons, the psalter according to the liturgical calendar, and the new one, consisting of systematic reading of and commenting on the chapters of the Bible (the Old and the New Testament separately). The Church inspectors obliged pastors to deliver Church services in a comprehensible language, as well as to use proper books, that is, catechisms, hymnbooks, postils and the New Testament in an adequate translation. In addition, there was the special institution of a translator (Tolken, Tolcken) appointed for the non-German speaking population (Małłek: 2013, 294). In fact, the authorities accepted older religious literature in Polish, which was to be revised and reshaped according to Lutheran ideas using the critical apparatus and commentaries (Warmin´ski: 1906). As a result, in the modern Lutheran texts, archaic grammar forms no longer used in the common language could be encountered. Murzynowski’s and Malecki’s authorship in general came with the Duke’s program, Jan Janów (1947) and Ignacy Warmin´ski (1906) proved they both were using older New Testament translations, which are unknown now; however, their ultimate visions of adequate modern translations were strongly different. Murzynowski’s translation of the New Testament constitutes an interesting philological testament to humanistic ambitions, appearing to be an innovative translation that – despite the fact that it is probably based on a Polish version of the New Testament that is unknown today – breaks medieval linguistic and stylistic conventions and poses a specific confrontation of the Old Polish text of the New Testament with a modern method – open to colloquial language, and at the same time, a translation that is a refined commentary on the Greek text, noting the differences between the Polish text and the original, as well as remaining consistent with the hermeneutic rules being developed, taken from both Christian exegetic tradition and the humanistic school grafted onto Biblical soil. The Polish translator inherited from his master Philip Melanchthon the conviction that learning about the Bible should be preceded by deep philological study. Thanks to the critical apparatus, the Polish translation is an excellent guide to the Greek text. It was no accident that on the title page of his version of the Gospel of Matthew he referred to the Greek source of the translation, veritas graeca was a novelty itself. He added information about the didactic function of the commentary book, interpreting and clarifying the text:

Secularization of Ducal Prussia and the Polish Literary Language

273

Ewanjelija s´wie˛ta Pana Jesusa Christusa wedle Matheusza S´wie˛tego, z Greckiego Je˛zyka na Polski przełoz˙ona. I wykładem krotkim a ku inszem Ewanjelistum potrzebnem, na wielu mies´cach objas´niona (Murzynowski: 1551, the title page). [Gospel of Jesus Christ According to St Matthew, translated from the Greek language into Polish: with a short comment to other needful Evangelists, explained in many places.]

The handwritten marginalia in Latin written by Jan Sandecki-Malecki for Albrecht Hohenzollern (the copy was offered to the Duke himself) indicated the negative attitude of the writer towards veritas graeca and the profound modernisation of the Bible. He preferred the model of moderately accommodating traditional Latin texts. Jan Sandecki-Malecki wrote: Dicit se ex Gre˛co Matheum in linguam polonicam transtulisse. Atque utinam non ex gre˛ce, sed ex latino translationem Matthei ueram ex verbis propriis Tue [?] 7 usitatis, iuxta latinam compositionem, quae cum polonica conuenit, fecisset; equidem pro Polonis satis esset (Murzynowski: 1551, the title page). [He claims to have translated Matthew from Greek into the Polish language. But it would be better if he had prepared a faultless translation from Latin, using proper and accustomed words, according to the Latin syntax that corresponds well with Polish [syntax]. That would be sufficient for the Poles.]

He also rejected the modernisation of important passages such as the Beatitudes or the Pater Noster undertaken by the translator according to current spoken forms. He noted: O quam ineptissima est versio vestra precationis dominice˛: et rustici ipsi reprehendent vos (Murzynowski, 1551, p. 23r). [How absurd is your translation of the Lord’s Prayer: even peasants will condemn you.]

The New Testament translation was designed by Murzynowski and Seklucjan as a multifunctional aid for students, pastors and common believers. For example, ordinary reading without the philological apparatus was possible (so-called goły tekst, ‘bare text’), but more difficult reading, activating elements of textual criticism (philological and hermeneutic reading), was also available. Another mode in which the text was used can be described as ‘pastoral’ that is, based on the liturgical calendar system. The main task of Stanisław Murzynowski was however to show the relationship between the Polish version of the New Testament and the Greek original. In his hermeneutics, the system of philological and textual criticism seems to be particularly important.8 7 An unknown word. 8 The most common type of glossa are lexical, stylistic or syntactic variants of Polish counterparts present in the main text, marked with an asterisk (*). These are usually literal translations

274

Izabela Winiarska-Górska

Typographic elements, such as: page header, tables of contents suggesting text segmentation and book division consistent with the canon, depending on the source text, bound the text together into one whole, but also supported the interpretation presupposed by the translator and editor. The text structure, as well as some paratextual items, played their role not only in drawing a book into a close unity, but also in shaping texts in the form of particular genres such as commentary or auxiliary handbook in New Testament Greek studies. It is absolutely worth noticing that revealing grammatical differences between Polish and Greek supporting different usually literal translations of Greek words or syntactic combinations enhanced the functional and linguistic efficiency of Polish. The young translator proceeded according to Martin Luther’s principle that the translation of the Bible only gains its proper sense when confronted with the original, when its sense in the original languages is known and understood; intertextuality is assumed in the structure and organization of the main text as well as in additional elements of the book. Parentheses, trefoils, asterisks, and similar elements of the text itself or its surroundings disrupt its continuity and linear order, disturbing its (superficial) cohesion but continuously reinforcing the text’s coherence. The high informativity of the text that the Biblical message owed to the critical apparatus may hinder communication; however, the reader’s efforts were rewarded by a deeper understanding and the possibility of so-called intensive reading. Hermeneutic assumptions found their fullest fulfillment in the glossa and commentary – in other words, the critical apparatus. Since Stanisław Murzynowski was the first among the translators of old to concentrate on showing intertextual relations between the Polish version and the Greek original, intratextual and marginal glossa are deserving of attention. He placed versions of text from the Vulgata in the margin on many occasions. The critical apparatus employed by the translator was rich. The commentary made it possible to delve deep into the text’s semantic structure, and above all to learn about the intertextual relations linking the Polish text to the Greek original, as well as the relationships between terminology in individual books of the New Testament (e. g., multiple meanings, different of Greek words or syntactic combinations. The text of the translation to which the glossa pertains is designated on one side by an asterisk (*) and on the other by the “]” character, and the literal translation bears the corresponding mark. In situations where a given expression has several different variants of translation present in the same chapter, the “♀” character appears on the margin. The second type of marginalia are strictly grammatical comments. The trefoil (clover) indicates the system differences between translation languages, mainly these of the conjunction i (and), prepositions, pronouns, for instance on (he). The third type of marginalia is usually a special commentary on words found in the main text, signaled by letters (usually A to F). In turn, the translator uses a cross [+] to denote text present in other Greek translations (cf. Biblia Slavica…: 2008; Winiarska-Górska: 2018 in press).

Secularization of Ducal Prussia and the Polish Literary Language

275

contextual meanings). The examples below illustrate the rules of using individual characters. Frequently cited examples significant from the perspective of Protestant hermeneutics include the part of the Gospel according to St Matthew (Matt 16:18) where the following words addressed to St Peter are spoken: “Tys´ jest opoka” (“You are a rock”). Here is an example where philology was applied to justify a position of belief. As is well-known, this sentence is interpreted by Catholics as assigning primacy to Peter, which justifies the continuity of the popes’ apostolic succession. The Protestants’ rejection of papal authority also required biblical confirmation. Protestant churches maintain that the words of Jesus refer to his faith through revelation in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, which made Simon ‘as steadfast as a rock’. The first Protestant translator made an effort to show this play on words and the reference to the etymology of the name “Peter – petra”, “petros – rock, rocky”, so he translated the already assimilated name of the apostle using the foreign word, and instead of using the words skała (rock) or opoka (boulder) that were in that semantic context akin in Old Polish. He also left the foreign form – petra, which, however, he attempted to adapt to the Polish language through inflection according to the rules of the Polish language. It is worth noting that only later Arian translators, Szymon Budny and Marcin Czechowic, made an attempt to show this play on words. The Brest translators applied a semi-novelty, citing the name of Peter and explaining its meaning in the second part of the sentence. In the common Polish language, the phrase originating from Jakub Wujek’s translation gained the status of a phraseme:9 Ale ja tobie powiedam, iz˙es´ ty jest Piotr, a na tej opoce zbuduje˛ kos´ciół mój. [But I say to thee that thou art Peter, and on this rock I shall build my church.] (Calvinist, Brest Bible: 1563, p. 11v) I ja zas´ mówie˛ tobie, iz˙ ty jestes´ skalny, a na tej skale zbuduje˛ mój zbór. [And I say to thee that thou art rocky, and on this rock I shall build my congregation.] (Polish Brother (Arian), Szymon Budny’s Bible: 1572, p. 11r) 9 Working materials found on the website of the Szesnastowieczne przekłady Ewangelii project [Sixteenth-century Translations of the Gospel] (http://www.ewangelie.uw.edu.pl) are used in this article. The site also includes a full characterization of translations constituting the basis of the edition, which was compiled under my editorship. Further in this article, translations will be designated by the year in which they were published, i. e.: 1551 Ewangelia według ´sw. Mateusza [The Gospel according to St Matthew], translated by Stanislaw Murzynowski, Königsberg; 1561 Nowy Testament z Biblii [The New Testament of the Bible] translated by Jan Leopolita, Kraków; 1563 Nowy Testament z Biblii brzeskiej [The New Testament of the Brest Bible], Brzes´c´; 1572 Nowy Testament z Biblii [The New Testament of the Bible] translated by Szymon Budny, Nies´wiez˙; 1577; Nowy Testament [The New Testament] translated by Marcin Czechowic; 1599 Nowy Testament [The New Testament] from Jakub Wujek’s translation of The Bible, Kraków.

276

Izabela Winiarska-Górska

A ja tez˙ tobie powiedam, iz˙es´ ty jest opoczysty, a na tej opoce zbuduje˛ zbór mój. [And I say to thee also, that t h o u a r t a rocky boulder, and on this boulder I shall build my congregation.] (Polish Brother (Arian), Marcin Czechowic’s New Testament: 1577, p. [F4v].) A ja tez˙ tobie powiadam, z˙es´ ty jest P i o t r , a na tej opoce zbuduje˛ kos´ciół mój. [And I say to thee also, that thou art Peter, and on this rock I shall build my church.] (Catholic, Leopolita’s Bible: 1561, p. [BB3v].) A ja tobie powiadam, iz˙es´ ty jest o p o k a , a na tej opoce zbuduje˛ kos´ciół mój. [And I say to thee that thou art a rock, and on this rock I shall build my church.] (Catholic, Jakub Wujek’s Bible: 1599, p. 1131.)

The subject matter of the debate was also about using such words as zbór, kos´ciół (‘church’, ‘congregation’) in religious texts. The term zbór, which in Old medieval Polish had the general meaning of ‘gathering’, became popular among Polish Protestants. It was also used by the Czech Brethren who settled down in Poland after 1548. The word was adopted by all Polish Protestants and gained interconfessional Protestant status at that time. Literally it means ‘gathering, bringing together’; in religious discourse in the senses of: ‘congregation’ and ‘temple’. Today, the term zbór has almost gone out of use. The Protestants use the most general word kos´ciół10 which appeared in Catholic translations. However, paratextual comments only created a frame of interpretation and expressed the author’s and/or publisher’s opinion, and thanks to their presence in the text or its surroundings, it was relatively easy to achieve the desired understanding of the essential message and to subject the text to a specific confessional control, and above all, to form a community subscribing to this interpretation. Such a method of text organisation played an important role in the propagation of institutionalized editions of the Holy Bible in national languages. Intertextuality, realised to a large extent by paratextual elements, became a significant feature of text organization in one variation of the native “vulgata”, which was essentially based on critical editions in the original languages or – as in the case of the Vulgata – classical editions in the official language of the Catholic Church. The unique interplay between marginalia and the main text demonstrates that Stanisław Murzynowski undoubtedly had ambitions to innovate, searched for the right wording, and bravely followed the Polish language spoken at the time. The abundant web of glossa provided with the main text of the translation is an 10 Initially in medieval Polish the word kos´ciół was the equivalent of Latin templum ‘temple’; later it was also used for Latin ecclesia, understood as the ‘community of the Christians’ (Winiarska: 2004).

Secularization of Ducal Prussia and the Polish Literary Language

277

undoubted innovation. Because of this, the entirety (i. e. the principal translation in combination with glossa) can be seen as an expansive philological commentary, meticulously noting the relationships between the Polish version proposed by the translator and the Greek original while also confronting the translation with other versions, including the Vulgata, according to the rules of textual criticism. One may hazard the assertion that the primary objective of this translation is to focus the reader’s attention on intertextual relationships. Murzynowski does not shy away from commentary on the subject of translations of Scripture predating his own, which transforms the book into a dialogue with the reader, where the Polish text becomes not only a bridge to the original but also a hermeneutic commentary on the subject of translating and commenting on the Bible. Understanding the language of the Word of God in an interlingual context is intended, the hermeneutics are theologically justified but also motivated didactically and rhetorically, above all. The search for original meaning led to the interpretation of important keywords, or as the Protestants would have it, the search for their original meaning, without any excess built up by the scholastic tradition, for example, and this included Latin words like spiritus, virtus and poenitentia. We find such keywords in the printing from Königsberg, as in the examplary verse Matt 3:2, in which the translator introduced the word upamie˛tanie (repentance), which became one of the Protestant keywords in Polish religious texts, even being a symbolic return to the Greek word metanoia, whose original meaning – as Martin Luther stated – was overshadowed by the conceptualization of the Latin poenitentia (from poena) in the sense of ‘penalty’; a similar meaning is expressed by the Old Polish and Czech noun pokuta, literally ‘penalty, fine’: I mówia˛c *upamie˛tajcie sie˛.] Abowiem ci sie˛ przybliz˙yło królestwo niebieskie (p. 9r). [And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.]

In the margin, we find a glossa in which the meaning of the proposed word was described and disambiguated, and the word pokuta (as a known form) formed the background to it: Lecz słowo greckie acz wsze˛dzie, wszakz˙e zwłaszcza w Pis´mie S´wie˛tym nie znaczy tego co pokuta˛ zowa˛, to jest jakie(go) dosyc´ czynienia za grzechy, ale znaczy u z n a n i e i z˙ałos´´c za grzech abo jaki uczynek, prawdziwa˛ i serdeczna˛ wola˛ polepszenia (p. 9r). [Yet the Greek word does not mean that which is called penance (pokuta), meaning some (kind of) recompense for sins, anywhere, and particularly in the Holy Bible, but means acknowledgment a n d regret for a sin or some act, with true and sincere intent for improvement.]

The word that is described and proposed, which was to replace the traditional word pokuta, appeared in an environment building the postulated cognitive

278

Izabela Winiarska-Górska

context. So all information required to direct the process of heuresis of modo evangelico was given in the margin. The interpreter identified the auditor’s ‘contextual resources’, correctly assuming that the word expected here in this quotation is pokuta. The translator and Lutheran exegete builds the change of cognitive context on the epistemic argument that he is referring to the original meaning, to the ‘truth arising from etymology’. In the exegete’s opinion, the description cites the true meaning determined according to the truth given by the Greek source, and thus he assumes that the recipient shares his view (proper to the Renaissance man) of the philological supremacy of the Greek text over the contaminated Vulgata. It is interesting that this element, which the translator independently inferred and arises from the meaning of the sentence that one cannot be pleasing to Christ when one does not adopt a sincere attitude of recognizing fault, regret and the intent to abandon misdeeds, is critical from the perspective of the creation of the Protestant cognitive and ethical community. Czego wszystkiego kto nie miałby tez˙ nie wiedziec´, co czynił, Pan Chrystus mu nic nie pomoz˙e. Bo tez˙ w takowem ani wiary be˛dzie, przez któryj sie˛ Panu Bogu nikt nie podoba (p. 9r). [If one should not know what he had done, Christ will not help him in anything. For in such a one there is no faith that would be pleasing to God.]

Stanisław Murzynowski plays the roles of both philologist and preacher, requiring not only the understanding of words but also turning attention to the need to internalise the meanings and values that they evoke. The example of one Protestant keyword illustrates the method of building a common evangelical perspective as a cohesive discourse propagated in national languages but based on assumptions common to the entire Protestant world and cultural ecumene. It is worth noting that a linguistic traditionalist, Jan Sandecki-Malecki, adopted a different method of introducing new meanings into the language by using the old religious term kajac´ sie˛ (repent) instead of upamie˛tajcie sie˛ (selfcontrol). According to him, this fragment should be translated as: Kajcie sie˛ z˙ywota prawego, bo blisko jest królestwo niebieskie (p. 9r). [Repent and adhere to a just life, for the kingdom of heaven is near.]

He saw this word as suitable because it was already rooted in medieval religious literature, was well-assimilated and was of Old Church Slavonic origin. It is therefore not surprising that this same term was found in the Arian translation of Szymon Budny, who consciously drew from Eastern Slavic tradition. It is worth noting that the terms pokajanie (repenting) and upamie˛tanie (reflection, self-control) are present in Protestant translations. They were distinctive substitutes for the word pokuta in sixteenth century Reformation literature. Since they were popularised Protestant confessional literature, they became perma-

Secularization of Ducal Prussia and the Polish Literary Language

279

nently ingrained in the evangelical tradition, becoming the identifying marks of such literature during that time to some extent. The neologism (or neosemantism) of upamie˛tanie was used as the equivalent of the Greek metanoia, while the noun pokajanie was based on the literature of the Eastern Church and used as a synonym for the noun pokuta (Latin poenitentia) (cf. Górski: 1962).11 The first to introduce these words on Polish soil was Murzynowski, who ineptly wove them into the text of the original translation of Matt 3:2 and Matt 3:8 and 3:11. Stanisław Murzynowski was mindful of the words of St Hilary, often repeated at the time – Scripturae non in legendo sunt, sed in intelligendo, meaning that knowledge of Scripture is not based on reading but rather on understanding and spreading the spiritual messages of the Holy Bible. He shows that a literal understanding of words may become a source of unnecessary polemics or heterodoxies, which pertains, for example, to the application of accepted terminology. The evangelical New Testament from Königsberg was to be the manifestation of the Lutheran idea of a ‘vernacular vulgata’, or the Word of God given in an understandable ‘home’ language, a standard text making it possible to create an evangelical interpreting community concentrated around the Book. The two mentioned attitudes were manifested as far as the text organisation is concerned. The New Testament edited by Jan Seklucjan is divided into chapters, while Jan Sandecki-Malecki preferred the form of the postil and the text organisation according to a system of pericopes. In Poland at that time the chapter division was perceived as a sign of innovation. The formal order of books and the easily identifiable sequence of books and chapters made it possible to differentiate that institutionalized and church recommended translation of the Holy Bible from popular Gospel Books, postils, Gospels and epistles, which preserved a system of pericopes according to the calendar of liturgical readings. Demands for such translations, which contained text in a canonical system and divided into chapters, was expressed at the beginning of the Reformation. They were considered to be a symbol of modernity. The postulate of making the Holy Bible available in the Polish language, in the form of vernacular vulgata, i. e. with text arranged in the canonical order of books, with delimitation according to chapters, and not in the system of pericopes, was raised in Prussian church laws. This issue was also addressed by Reformation writings addressed to the broader public, including the work of Franciszek Stankar Canones Reformationis Ecclesiarum Polonicarum (1552), printed in Latin and Polish. In Poland, similarly as in all of Europe, postils also enjoyed popularity. This is why a ‘portable’ Gospel or postil, and thus, a set of texts in a liturgical system, 11 Nowadays the word pokajanie belongs to the religious register and it is obsolete; in current Polish the word opamie˛tanie (self-control, reflection) is used in not religious contexts.

280

Izabela Winiarska-Górska

including a homily, was to be a competing work to the translation of the New Testament.12 Lay readers were accustomed to such printed and handwritten editions. It was also common for the clergy to use them. Jan Sandecki-Malecki was going to edit his own Gospel Book called in Polish postzlle (postils). According to his minimalist plan “that would be sufficient for the Poles.” Stanisław Murzynowski’s translation was created for the purposes of Lutheranisation conducted methodically under the watchful eye of Albrecht Hohenzollern in relation to the secularization of the Duchy of Prussia, so the edition was assumed to be an institutionalized version. This is also an expression of the reformer’s and translator’s conviction of the need to break the linguistic templates of the medieval ‘cultural message’. The critical remarks of Jan SandeckiMalecki are indicative of this, and at least several words of commentary should be devoted to them. Essentially, his fundamental accusation can be reduced to the question of whether such a rich philological apparatus is really necessary in the practical work of a Lutheran pastor. Jan Sandecki-Malecki posed the question about the language of the base translation. He expressed his views in commentary on the title page, handwritten comments in the margins, and in a handwritten review of the translation, most probably written down by his son. Jan Sandecki-Malecki was a pastor (minister), a teacher, a man of writing and above all an accomplished editor from Krakow. He accused Jan Seklucjan and Stanisław Murzynowski of independent lexical searching, failure to adhere to existing tradition and filling the margins to an excessive extent. The meticulously crafted critical apparatus of Stanisław Murzynowski was also met with a rebuke. In his Haereses et errores in Commentario Joannis Secluciani in Mattaeum per Joannem Maletium Ministrum ecclesiae Llycensis collati et confutati: Appendix de translatione he wrote: they filled the margins with more variants than necessary and too frequently without cause (…). It was also not laid out in careful, proper, correct, clear and customarily used words (Sandecki-Malecki: 1551, 12v).

As Stanisław Rospond (1949) states the majority of his critical remarks can be reduced to the comment: Inordinata, et confusa, et non distincta ac obscura locutio, meaning “disorganised, mixed up, disorderly and unclear language”. The publisher heard many unpleasant words on the subject of the syntax, punctuation and calligraphy. Jan Sandecki-Malecki convinced the authorities of the Church in Prussia of the flawed understanding of the concept of ‘justification’ 12 The clergy’s custom of using postils transcribed by hand was also criticized by the Czech Brethren, Jerzy Izrael and Jan Ryba after they visited the Calvinist congregations in the Lesser Poland (Małopolska) region in 1556. They admitted that a hunger for supporting literature was present among those clergy who adopted Reformation positions (Sipayłło: 1966, 92–93).

Secularization of Ducal Prussia and the Polish Literary Language

281

(usprawiedliwienie), which he marked in several places, including in p. 3v, writing: Mala definitio iustificationis, i. e. “Incorrect definition of justification”. He devoted much space to this issue in the copy of his commentary presented to Albrecht. In the comments intended for Duke Albrecht, he wrote: Those who are translators of Holy Scriptures and who write commentary on them should guard themselves in every way so as not to teach anything nor place anything in their comments that would stand in contradiction to the true Christian faith and teachings: so that the church of Christ, which is the pillar of truth, will not be infected and entangled in errors and heresies. Thus, to remedy this evil, our Most Magnificent Duke has ordered me to investigate Jan Seklucjan’s commentary on Matthew, published recently in the Polish language; and if there shall be things incorrect therein, to collect them with care. Therefore I have selected from among the many [errors] some: namely those that are greater and in contradiction with the Christian faith and teachings and those that seemed to sow and incite heresy in the hearts of the faithful. If I were to note each and every [error] separately in this commentary, in the substance or clarification, in the translation, in words, syntax and punctuation, in the Polish orthography – and if I were inclined to refute them by arguments – this writing of mine by itself would grow into a hefty volume (Sandecki-Malecki: 1551, 2r-v).13

The problem is that in many cases the Protestant vocabulary used in the Middle Polish texts consists of long, periphrastic constructions, auxiliary descriptions and explanations, yet according to our contemporary theory, many terms are not, in fact, the terminology sensu stricto. The aim of the Lutheran writing was not to create new terminology, but to explain the ideas of the Reformation in plain words and using comprehensible language. The New Testament as translated by Stanisław Murzynowski is also an example of the development of the institutionalized conveyance of the Word of God and paints a picture of the difficulties faced by the publishers from Königsberg in the situation where the intentions of the translation were insufficiently understood. Concern for proper understanding permeates through multiple layers of the text, even penetrating into the orthographic concept. The innovative, for Poland at that time, form of the translation suggests that the translator aimed high, wishing for the evangelical spiritual and religious community to be founded on a strong philological pillar and appreciating the role of philological skills in the interpretation of the Holy Bible. He was aware of the hermeneutic effort that must be made by the reader/ listener to decode the text on multiple levels. In turn, the uncomplimentary remarks of Sandecki-Malecki can be interpreted as an example of ‘bad faith’ rooted in rivalry, but also as evidence of a lack of agreement between two schools of thought: the old school, slightly modifying the Latin tradition to the needs of the new situation regarding faith, 13 Translated by Sebastian Skowron.

282

Izabela Winiarska-Górska

and Murzynowski’s new Lutheran school, open to philology and linguistic experimentation. We have to admit that the translator Stanisław Murzynowski started his work when he was then 26 years old. Jan Sandecki-Malecki pointed out his immaturity. In passing, it is also worth discussing the question of linguistic innovation in this translation as the basis for the polemic between SandeckiMalecki and Seklucjan. It is known that the dispute developed before the New Testament publication and inevitably, due to the text’s importance, this matter has been severely treated by the experienced editor. The most important points of this polemics concerned the following questions: (a) new conventions for spelling (e. g. one-word and separate spelling of prepositional phrases, as well as enclitic and proclitic clusters), (b) modernization of vocabulary depending upon common language without respect to the established literary forms inherited from the Middle Ages, (c) syntax (too long periods and colons, improper segmentation that leading to misunderstandings), (d) grammar (using innovative forms) and (e) style of translation (meticulousness, unnecessary critical apparatus of the New Testament translation). To sum up the influence of Lutheranism on the Polish language, we have to underscore that although Protestant religious discourse is not currently prevalent in Poland, it nonetheless has its historical significance. It was particularly evident in the Polish language of the Early Modern era.

Bibliography Primary Sources Biblia Slavica, Serie II: Polnische Bibeln (2008), Stanisław Murzynowski, Neues Testament Teil II: Apostelgeschichte und Briefe, Königsberg 1552, Hans Rothe (ed.), Arleta Łuczak (foreword), Paderborn/Munich/Vienna/Zurich: Ferdinand Schönigh. Murzynowski, Stanisław (1551), Ewangelia […] wedle Mateusza svietego […] na polski przełoz˙ona [przez Stanisława Murzynowskiego] i objas´niona […] przydana [S. Murzynowskiego Ortographia Polska to iest] nauka czytania i pisania ie˛zyka polskiego, Königsberg: Jan Seklucjan. Sandecki-Malecki, Jan (1551), Haereses et errores in Commentario Joannis Secluciani in Mattaeum per Joannem Maletium Ministrum ecclesiae Llycensis collati et confutati, manuscript, XX. HA, Hs 28; scans obtained from Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preußischer Kulturbesitz. Szesnastowieczne przekłady Ewangelii, project [Sixteenth-century Translations of the Gospel], http://www.ewangelie.uw.edu.pl/ (01. 10. 2017).

Secularization of Ducal Prussia and the Polish Literary Language

283

Secondary Literature Czerniatowicz, Janina (1969), Niektóre problemy naukowe grecystyki w pracach biblistów polskich XVI i XVII wieku. Teksty greckie a polskie przekłady, Warszawa/ Wrocław/Kraków: Ossolineum. Fairclough, Norman/Wodak, Ruth (1997), Critical discourse analysis, in: Teun van Dijk (ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, vol. 2, London: Sage, 258–284. Frick, David A. (1989), Polish Sacred Philology in the Reformation and the CounterReformation: Chapters in the History of the Controversies (1551–1632), Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press. Górski, Konrad (1962), Zagadnienia słownictwa reformacji polskiej, in: Renata Mayenowa and Zenon Klemensiewicz (ed.), Odrodzenie w Polsce, vol. 3.2, Warszawa: Pan´ stwowy Instytut Wydawniczy, 247–248. Janów, Jan (1947), Ewangeliarz z pocza˛ tku szesnastego wieku i dwa po´z´niejsze druki polskie tegoz˙ autora, Kraków: Polska Akademia Umieje˛tnos´ci. Klemensiewicz, Zenon (2007), Historia je˛zyka polskiego, 9th ed., Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. Kocot, Anna/Poz´niak, Piotr (2012), Hymns from Jan Seklucjan’s Collections (1547, 1550, 1559) and from Various Prints ca. 1554 –ca. 1607, Kraków: Musica Iagellonica. Lewszkiewicz, Tadeusz (2017), The role of high prestige languages in the formation of European literary languages, Accents and Paradoxes of Modern Philology 1, 32–41. Małłek, Janusz (2103), Opera Selecta 2: Poland and Prussia in the Baltic Area from the Sixteenth to the Eighteenth Century, Torun´: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UMK. Rospond, Stanisław (1949), Studia nad je˛zykiem polskim XVI wieku (Jan Seklucjan, Stanisław Murzynowski, Jan Sandecki-Malecki, Grzegorz Orszak), Wrocław: Nakładem Wrocławskiego Towarzystwa Naukowego. Sipayłło, Maria (1966), Akta synodów róz˙nowierczych, vol. 1, Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. Warmin´ski, Ignacy (1906), Andrzej Samuel i Jan Seklucjan, Poznan´: Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Nauk w Poznaniu. winiarska, izabela (2004), Słownictwo religijne polskiego kalwinizmu od XVI do XVIII wieku na tle terminologii katolickiej, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Semper. Winiarska-Górska, Izabela (2018), The Impact of Lutheran Thought on the Polish Literary Language in the 16th Century, in: Mikko Kauko/Miika Norro/Kirsi-Maria Nummila/Tanja Toropainen (ed.), Languages in the Lutheran Reformation, Turku: Amsterdam University Press (in press).

Influences: Synod of Dordt

Erik A. de Boer/Donald Sinnema/Dolf te Velde

Discipline Cases at the Synod of Dordt: Introduction

In the light of the 400th anniversary of the National Synod of Dordt 1618–1619 a panel1 was organized in which the most important disciplinary cases were outlined. The Remonstrants were present at the National Synod as cited by the States General. Only two Remonstrant ministers had taken their place as delegates of Utrecht (Isaac Frederici and Samuel Naeranus), but they chose to join the body of cited ministers on 10 December 1618. Although as professor of theology at Leiden University, Simon Episcopius could have been theological advisor, he also was cited to appear and became spokesman of the Remonstrants. The focus of the first contribution is on the Synod’s first phase of procedural debates with the cited Remonstrants, which lasted from 6 December 1618 to 14 January 1619. Two of the cited Remonstrants were ministers in Kampen in the province of Overijssel. This city was regarded as a Remonstrant bulwark and had been the last to yield to the pressure no longer to oppose the convening of a National Synod. Moreover, the Contra-Remonstrant congregation sent delegates to ask the Synod’s help in their struggle against the two other Remonstrant ministers who remained in Kampen, supported by the city’s magistrate. The Kampen-case, analyzed in the second contribution, seems to have been a trial in a double sense. In fact, all four ministers somehow stood trial, but also the city’s situation served as a kind of trial procedure in which the National Synod answered the call of a specific city. During its final sessions, on 4 May 1619, the Synod issued a statement condemning an impressive list of doctrinal errors ascribed to Conrad Vorstius. The third paper raises the question as to why the Synod proceeded against a man whose career had already been broken in 1611–1612 by the cancelation of his professorate at Leiden university? The paper seeks to find answers in the material produced by the Synod itself and in a few related sources. As the synod saw it, the teachings of Vorstius on God and Christ provided the fundamental 1 Panel “Discipline Cases at the Synod of Dordt (1618–19)”, presenters Dr. Don Sinnema, Dr. Erik A. de Boer and Dr. Dolf te Velde.

288

Erik A. de Boer/Donald Sinnema/Dolf te Velde

framework in which the Remonstrant positions on grace and free choice would make sense.

Donald Sinnema

Procedural Wrangling in the Remonstrant Case at the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619)

The Synod of Dordt, which met for six and a half months from mid-November 1618 to the end of May 1619, was convened primarily to settle the Arminian controversy that had agitated the Netherlands for about twenty years. The synod also considered other discipline cases and made decisions on a variety of other ecclesiastical matters.1 Although it was a national synod of the Dutch Reformed churches, it had a broad international character since 26 Reformed theologians from eight foreign territories participated as full members of the synod. There were ten Dutch delegations, representing the provincial and particular synods, as well as five professors of theology from the various Dutch universities and academies. In addition, the Dutch government (the States General), which convened the synod, sent eighteen state delegates to supervise the proceedings and advise especially on matters of procedure (ADSND, vol. 1, XLIII–CVII). The Arminian or Remonstrant case was technically a case of doctrinal discipline, as the synod sought to examine and make a judgment about views of the Remonstrants concerning predestination and related points that were considered to deviate from the accepted doctrine of the Dutch Reformed churches. In a sense, the outcome of the Remonstrant case was determined already in the political arena, when Prince Maurits of Orange in the summer of 1618 disbanded the local militia in various Dutch cities and then replaced pro-Remonstrant political officials who supported the advocate Oldenbarnevelt with officials who supported the Contra-Remonstrant or orthodox Reformed cause (Israel: 1998, 443–456). 1 The deliberations of the synod are reported in the Acta Authentica, published in vol. 1 of Acta et Documenta Synodi Nationalis Dordrechtanae, Sinnema/Moser/Selderhuis, 2015; hereafter: ADSND; the letters of observer John Hales in his Golden Remains (1673), 2:1–190; and letters of the Hesse delegates, published in Heppe: 1853, 226–327. Remonstrant reports of the synod are published in: Dwinglo: 1623; Barlaeus: 1684, 513–527, and Brandt: 1704. Documents from the period of procedural debates are in vol. 2.2 of ADSND, 2017. Remonstrant documents submitted to the synod are published in: Acta et Scripta: 1620.

290

Donald Sinnema

Since the Contra-Remonstrants were dominant in the Dutch churches, the provincial synods sent to the Synod of Dordt only those sympathetic to the Contra-Remonstrant cause, except for Utrecht, which sent three Contra-Remonstrant and three Remonstrant delegates. In its early sessions the synod summoned thirteen leading Remonstrants to the synod to have their views examined and judged. They chose Leiden theologian Simon Episcopius as their spokesman. When the Remonstrant case came up on the agenda, the two Utrecht Remonstrant ministers were pressured to join the cited Remonstrants (ADSND, vol. 1, 36; 39–41; Dwinglo: 1623, 29r–31r). The general proceedings of the synod consisted of four phases: (1) In the ProActa sessions, before the arrival of the Remonstrants, the synod for three weeks discussed several non-doctrinal matters, including a new Dutch Bible translation, the manner of catechizing and theological training. (2) During the five weeks from when the Remonstrants arrived on 6 December 1618, until they were expelled from the synod on 14 January 1619, the Synod of Dordt was largely entangled in procedural debates with them. (3) After their expulsion, the synod for over three months focused on examining and preparing a judgment on the Remonstrant case – in the form of the Canons of Dordt. The synod also reviewed and approved the doctrine of the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism, and handled other discipline cases relating to four Remonstrant ministers of Kampen, Johannes Maccovius and Conrad Vorstius. (4) After this work was completed in early May and the foreign theologians returned home, in the PostActa sessions the Dutch delegates discussed various matters of specific relevance to the Dutch churches, including a revised church order. This article examines the course of the procedural debates in the second phase of the synod, and will cast light on the factors that led to the Remonstrant expulsion from the synod.

The Procedural Issues A fundamental cause of the procedural debates lay in the fact that the two sides differently identified the central issue in the doctrinal controversy. For the Contra-Remonstrants, the issue was Remonstrant doctrinal deviation in their view of predestination and related points, especially in their view that God predestined people on the condition of foreseen faith. For the Remonstrants, the issue centered on extreme views of reprobation taught by certain Contra-Remonstrants and other Reformed theologians. Because the Remonstrants were not represented at the synod, but were summoned before it to have their views judged, they were in a disadvantageous position. The synod, along with the state delegates, determined the agenda. In these circumstances the Remonstrants

Procedural Wrangling in the Remonstrant Case at the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619)

291

made every attempt to have the reprobation issue placed on the agenda. They wanted to be assured that they would have full freedom to refute Contra-Remonstrant views of reprobation and that the synod would examine and declare its judgment on such views. This gave rise to much of the procedural contention. When the Remonstrants arrived on 6 December, the first procedural issue to arise concerned the authority of the Synod of Dordt. Could the synod legitimately act as the judge of Remonstrant views? The Remonstrants pressed this point, because, as they saw it, the synod was composed of Contra-Remonstrants who were the adversarial party in the controversy, and they considered it manifestly unjust for one party in the dispute to act as the judge. Should not the synod function rather as a conference between equally represented parties and thereby seek an accommodated settlement of the dispute? For the synod, however, the crux of this issue was whether the church has the right to judge doctrinal views that deviate from the confessional standards of orthodoxy, in a case of ecclesiastical discipline. After the authority question, the main procedural issues revolved around how the synod was to deal with the actual doctrinal questions in the controversy. Of these procedural issues, the most important were whether the Remonstrants would be allowed to refute Contra-Remonstrant views, and whether they would be allowed to treat reprobation freely. This issue surfaced repeatedly in various forms. Involved in many of these procedural debates were conflicting interpretations of the citation letters which summoned the Remonstrants. On 16 November, the synod and the state delegates each sent a letter citing thirteen leading Remonstrants to appear before the synod within fourteen days.2 Both letters called for these Remonstrants to “state, explain and, as much as they shall consider necessary, defend,” their views of the Five Articles of the 1610 Remonstrance, and asked them to submit any observations or doubts they had about the Heidelberg Catechism and Belgic Confession. It is noteworthy that the citation letters of the state delegates mentioned the intention only to examine Remonstrant views, not to judge them. For this reason, the Remonstrants appealed more to this letter than to that of the synod. The letter from the synod specifically mentioned that the Remonstrant views would be examined and judged. The Remonstrants repeatedly appealed to these letters as the basic documents that spelled out their obligations to the synod. These citation letters, however, lacked precision and did not address all possible procedural points that might arise. So it was possible for the Remonstrants to interpret them differently than the synod on specific procedural points.

2 The letters of citation are in ADSND, vol. 2.2, 62–66.

292

Donald Sinnema

Five categories of such procedural issues that surfaced in the course of the debates with the Remonstrants may be identified: (1) Do the citation letters allow the Remonstants only to present their own views, or also to refute opposing views? Does the reference to “defending” also include refuting? May the Remonstrants express their views not only in positive but also in negative form? If so, is refuting allowed only after or also during the presentation of their own views? May they refute only the Dutch Contra-Remonstrants, or may they refute also foreign theologians who hold the same views? (2) Do the citation letters allow the Remonstrants to deal not only with election, but also with reprobation? Is the synod obligated to examine also reprobation? Is reprobation to be treated before or after election? (3) How much freedom should the Remonstrants have to present their views and refute others? Specifically, does the phrase, “as much as they shall consider necessary,” refer only to defending, or also to stating and explaining? Who is to decide how much is necessary, the Remonstrants or the synod? Is their freedom unlimited, or must it be regulated by the synod in order to prevent deliberate abuse? Is this issue of freedom a matter of conscience, or only a matter of procedure and order? (4) Are the Remonstrant observations on the Catechism and Confession to be submitted together with their views of the Five Articles, or only after the Articles have been completely dealt with by the synod? Are the observations to be presented jointly or individually? Must the Remonstrants submit in writing not only their observations but also their views of the Five Articles, or may the Articles be discussed orally? (5) Must the examination of Remonstrant views be done only by way of questions, or by way of a free presentation of their views? Which should come first, the questioning or the presenting of their views? Must the questions be answered orally or in writing? Must they be answered individually, or may the Remonstrants answer jointly as a body? These were the main issues that entangled the synod in its five weeks of debates with the Remonstrants. Although both sides made some concessions, in the end they were unable to reach agreement on procedure.

Episcopius’ Speech On 7 December, Simon Episcopius delivered a long oration before the synod to clarify the motives and background of the Remonstrant position (ADSND, vol. 2.2, 267–283). He asserted that they tried to publicly oppose detestable private beliefs about predestination that had given occasion to slanders against the Reformed churches. After the speech, President Bogerman asked Episcopius to hand in a copy of the speech, but Episcopius said he had “no other copy” (according to many in the synod), or that he had “no other copy that was neatly

Procedural Wrangling in the Remonstrant Case at the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619)

293

enough written out (satis nitide descriptum)” (according to the Remonstrants). When it was discovered that Episcopius also had a rough draft of the speech, Bogerman accused him of a lie for saying that he had no other copy. Episcopius bitterly denied the accusation (ADSND, vol. 1, 38; 41–42; 50; 54–55; vol. 2.2, 284– 286; Dwinglo: 1623, 28r; 31r-v; 49r; 52r–53v; Hales: 1673, 2:36–37; 49).

The Question of the Synod’s Authority Already when the Remonstrants first entered the synod on 6 December, the issue of its authority was raised. When Episcopius stated that the Remonstrants were ready to have a conference (collatio) on the points in dispute, they were firmly reminded that the synod did not intend to hold a conference between equal parties; rather, they were summoned so that they might state, explain and defend their view and await the synod’s judgment (ADSND, vol. 1, 34–35; Hales: 1673, 2:29–30; Dwinglo: 1623, 12v–13r). On 10 December, President Bogerman wanted to turn to the main issue of the synod, and he asked whether the Remonstrants were ready to state, explain and defend their views on the Five Articles in writing (ADSND, vol. 1, 42; Hales: 1673, 2:36; Dwinglo: 1623, 31v). But the Remonstrants wished to first read a paper that made two main points: First, the Remonstrants could not recognize the synod as their lawful judge, because most of its members were their confessed enemies, and because some of them were guilty of schisms. Second, they demanded that twelve conditions be met before they could recognize the synod. Their basic demands were: that both parties be equally represented; that the issues be judged by Scripture, not by the Confession or Catechism; that a revision of the confessions be considered; and that the synod seek accommodation, not decision. In other words, what the Remonstrants wanted was a conference between equal parties (ADSND, vol. 1, 42–43; vol. 2.2, 308–333). This sparked a lengthy debate about the lawful jurisdiction of the synod. The conditions demanded by the Remonstrants were rejected, and they received a reprimand from the synod (ADSND, vol. 1, 43–48). The state delegates also commanded them in a resolution to submit and proceed without evasion to the main issue (ADSND, vol. 2.2, 333–334). On 11 December, Episcopius presented a formal protest against the synod’s reprimand, and categorically rejected the authority of the synod as a legitimate judge of the controversy. However, it also stated that the Remonstrants were ready to proceed to the doctrinal matter, according to their conditions (ADSND, vol. 1, 48–49; vol. 2.2, 350–354; Dwinglo: 1623, 46v). The same day, the Remonstrants submitted a response to the state delegates’ resolution directed against them. They promised obedience to political authority

294

Donald Sinnema

in all things not in conflict with their consciences, and stated they were ready to comply if certain conditions were met, much like the earlier twelve. Of note here is that the Remonstrants interpreted the reference to defending (in the citation letters) in a broad sense that included refuting of opposing views (ADSND, vol. 2.2, 335–336). On the 12th of December, the synod considered the Remonstrant protest and, with the unanimous advice of the foreign delegates, declared it groundless (ADSND, vol. 2.2, 359–417).3 The synod could not be denied its function as judge, because the practice of the church had always expected the faithful to oppose new opinions (ADSND, vol. 1, 51–53). In the afternoon session, after much heated debate about whether they would submit, the Remonstrants presented a brief reply that expressed their willingness to cooperate according to the stipulations of the citation letters, while reserving their judgment against the synod as a lawful judge (ADSND, vol. 1, 54–57; vol. 2.2, 356–357). This was a slight capitulation on their part. Bogerman then required that on the next day the Remonstrants present in writing their own views on Article One concerning predestination without refuting opposing views. Episcopius replied that the Remonstrants had always interpreted the citation letters to mean that the Five Articles would be treated in an oral conference, and that only their observations on the Confession and Catechism were to be presented in writing. This drew a rejoinder from the state delegates that the intention of the States General was to have the synod examine the written views of the Remonstrants, not have an oral conference between two parties. When the Remonstrants complained that such a denial of their freedom to discuss orally and refute their opponents was too narrow an interpretation of the citation letters, they were assured that, after presenting their views in writing, they would be heard orally, and the matter of refuting would be considered after their views were treated. Finally, after much debate, the Remonstrants yielded and promised to present their views on Article One in writing the next day (ADSND, vol. 1, 56–57; Dwinglo: 1623, 55r-v).

The Remonstrant Sententiae on the Five Articles The following day, 13 December, the Remonstrants submitted their Sententia on Article One in the form of ten theses (ADSND, vol. 1, 57; Acta Synodi: 1620, 1:113– 114; Acta et Scripta: 1620, 1:71–73). Formally, at least, the Remonstrants offered the Sententia as the “statement” of their view, thus fulfilling the first of the three requirements – to state, explain and defend – spelled out in the citation letters. In 3 The advice of the Dutch delegations was not read in the synod.

Procedural Wrangling in the Remonstrant Case at the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619)

295

the theses, they took advantage of the occasion to focus especially on reprobation and to reject the Contra-Remonstrant position. The synod immediately complained that the Sententia stated what they did not believe, and rejected the views of others more than it stated their own view (ADSND, vol. 1, 57; vol. 2.2, 418–419; Dwinglo: 1623, 57r). The next session, the synod required the Remonstrants to submit their views on the other four Articles in dispute before entering an examination of the issues, since the Five Articles were mutually connected. Bogerman added two admonitions: First, the Remonstrants must affirmatively present their own views, rather than negatively oppose views of others. If they wished to add a refutation of opposing views afterwards, they might do so. Secondly, they must keep to the topic of election, rather than odiously criticize the topic of reprobation. This topic could be treated afterwards, as much as considered necessary (ADSND, vol. 1, 58; Dwinglo: 1623, 57r-v). On 17 December, the Remonstrants submitted their Sententiae on Articles Two-Five. Like the Article One theses, these theses were both affirmative and negative in form. The Remonstrants appended to these Sententiae a number of reasons for expressing their views negatively and for treating the doctrine of reprobation (Acta Synodi: 1620, 1:116–122; Acta et Scripta: 1620, 1:73–83; ADSND, vol. 2.2, 591–597). It is apparent that the Remonstrants assumed Bogerman’s admonitions to be more stringent than they actually were. Although the tone of the admonitions indicated a toughening of Bogerman’s position, the admonitions were not a strict prohibition of refutation and of all treatment of reprobation. Bogerman had said both would be permitted “afterward.” But the Remonstrants only heard a prohibition of both. They listed fifteen reasons in defence of their right to negatively reject contrary doctrine, and seven reasons for treating not only election, but also reprobation. In the conclusion to the Sententiae, the Remonstrants asserted that what distressed them most were the teachings of many Contra-Remonstrants on reprobation. These doctrines were injurious to God’s honor, harmful to piety, and had caused no small disturbances in the churches ever since the Reformation. Such doctrines the synod must publicly reject.

Remonstrant Observations on the Confession and Catechism At the same session, Bogerman required each of the Remonstrants individually to produce their observations on the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism. This sparked a new debate. The Remonstrants argued that the citation

296

Donald Sinnema

letters required that such observations be presented only after the Five Articles had been treated. In the end, the Remonstrants were given four days to present their observations (ADSND, vol. 1, 60–61; Dwinglo: 1623, 62r–65v). Meanwhile, during the 20 December session, Bogerman raised the issue how the Remonstrants interpreted their citation letters. The synod decided that the phrase, “as much as they shall judge necessary,” in the citation letters referred only to the term “defend,” not to “state” and “explain.” Thus the Remonstrants were to explain their views, not as much as they, but as much as the synod would judge necessary. This interpretation the Remonstrants bitterly regarded as an attempt to restain them from exercizing their right to refute (ADSND, vol. 1, 64; Dwinglo: 1623, 67v–68r). On 21 December, the Remonstrants submitted their Observations (Considerationes) on the Belgic Confession, signed by all. In a preface, they insisted that they called into doubt no doctrine commonly accepted by the Reformed churches, but only offered observations on matters of order and ways of speaking. Their intention was simply to present suggestions for confessional revision, not objections to the Confession that might be judged by the synod (Acta et Scripta: 1620, 1:83–102). The Remonstrants were expected to have objections especially to the Confession’s article sixteen, which focused on election. But their brief observations in fact dealt mainly with the interpetation of this article. After the observations were submitted, the Synod then reprimanded the Remonstrants for not presenting their observations on the Catechism at the same time, and for presenting their observations on the Confession jointly rather than individually (Dwinglo: 1623, 76v–77v). The state delegates also issued a resolution that the Remonstrants had not fulfilled the requirements regarding the Confession and Catechism, and they gave them until 27 December to submit their observations on the Catechism (ADSND, vol. 1, 66–67; vol. 2.2, 501–503). After the Christmas adjournment, on the 27th of December the Remonstrants submitted their Observations on the Heidelberg Catechism. The main set of observations was jointly signed by Episcopius and seven other Remonstrants. Four others submitted individual observations. They were offered in the same spirit as the observations on the Confession, as suggestions for improvement in the review and revision of the Catechism (Acta et Scripta: 1620, 1:102–133).

The Synod’s 27 December Decision and the Remonstrant Reply During the same session, President Bogerman informed the Remonstrants of the synod’s decision that the liberty expressed in the citation letters’ phrase, “as far as you shall judge necessary,” extended only to defending, and not to stating and

Procedural Wrangling in the Remonstrant Case at the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619)

297

explaining their views. Bogerman asserted that it was the duty of the synod to examine Remonstrant views, not the views of others – which could possibly happen later – and therefore the Remonstrants should stick to their own view (ADSND, vol. 1, 69–70; Dwinglo: 1623, 95v–96v). Episcopius answered that it was important to their consciences to refute the opposing view: We are not so much troubled with election, but the shoe pinches us above all in respect to that doctrine of reprobation which says God by an absolute and unconditioned decree reprobated the majority of mankind to eternal destruction…. This vexes us. Therefore we must refute it (Barlaeus: 1648, 521).

During the ensuing debate, Bogerman assured the Remonstrants that they would be allowed to refute opposing views after first presenting their own, and that the synod would deal with reprobation, as much as it thought necessary, after election (Heppe: 1853, 264; Hales: 1673, 2:56; Dwinglo: 1623, 97v). This indicates a slight softening in Bogerman’s attitude, in contrast with the stern tone of his earlier admonitions. But his position remained basically the same: refuting and reprobation could be done later. These assurances did not satisfy the Remonstrants. They wanted full freedom to refute and treat reprobation. At one point in the debate, the Remonstrant Philippus Pijnacker made the comment that since the turmoil in the church arose from the issue of reprobation, it ought to be treated “in the first place.” When Bogerman called this preposterous, Pijnacker tried to clarify his ambiguous comment by explaining that by “first” he meant “especially” or “primarily” (Dwinglo: 1623, 98r; Barlaeus: 1648, 521). Despite the explanation, the synod was left with the impression that the Remonstrants wanted reprobation discussed first. Little progress was made because each side viewed the issue differently. The Remonstrants considered it a matter of conscience whether they would have the freedom to treat reprobation as much as they thought necessary. For Bogerman the issue was simply a matter of order, whether reprobation would be treated before or after election. The synod was left somewhat bewildered by the Remonstrant unwillingness to accept Bogerman’s assurances about refuting and reprobation. Finally, to make its position clear to them, and to accommodate them as much as possible, the synod issued a decision, which declared that the synod decided to examine the Remonstrant view not only of election but also of reprobation, as much as it considered sufficient. As for the order, this was the prerogative of the synod to decide (ADSND, vol. 1, 70–71; vol. 2.2, 597–598; Dwinglo: 1623, 98v). This decision basically formalized Bogerman’s earlier assurance regarding reprobation. But it did not mention refuting, and so it did not appear to grant to the Remonstrants any such freedom. It simply declared the synod’s intention to examine the Remonstrant view of reprobation. To the Remonstrants, this was no

298

Donald Sinnema

concession; it even looked like a step back from Bogerman’s assurances about refuting. What they wanted was the freedom to refute the Contra-Remonstrant view of reprobation. Besides, they thought that they, not the synod, should decide on the extent of such freedom. The next morning (28 December), the Remonstrants submitted a long letter in response to the synod’s decision. They felt that the decision restricted the freedom promised to them in the citation letters, and so they reiterated their basic request that they be allowed, not only to state, explain and defend their view of election as well as reprobation (here they did not want to argue about the order), but also to oppose the contrary view, in the manner that they should judge necessary. It was not sufficient that the synod allowed the Remonstrants to discuss their own view of reprobation as much as the synod itself thought necessary. This restriction deprived them of the freedom to fully defend their view and to oppose the contrary view (ADSND, vol. 1, 75–76; vol. 2.2, 600–607).

The Synod’s Explanation of its Decision Now that the basic Remonstrant documents required by the citation letters had been submitted, it was thought necessary that the synod should orally examine the Remonstrants to get a fuller explanation of their views than was presented in their Sententiae, which were considered too negative and much too sketchy. This examination was to take the form of questions posed to the Remonstrants individually so that each of them might give account of his own views. On this basis, it was hoped that the synod could make a better informed judgment. Thus Bogerman on 28 December began to ask each Remonstrant the question: “Do you still hold as your own view the Articles presented to the Hague Conference,4 and especially the First Article?” This procedure of examination sparked a new set of debates about the validity of asking questions and the necessity of answering individually. The Remonstrants refused to answer this first question, most pleading that they could not proceed in good conscience without the freedom they requested (Dwinglo: 1623, 102r–104v; ADSND, vol. 1, 72–74; Hales: 1673, 2:59–61). At this point, the proceedings were locked in an impasse. The Remonstrants rejected the synod’s decision and refused to answer questions without a guarantee of the freedom they sought. In a closed session on 28 December, the synod then deliberated on how to proceed, and whether some way of accommodation might be found. Though opinions varied – some thought the synod had already been too favorable to the Remonstrants, others thought they should be granted all that they demanded, 4 I.e. the Five Articles of the 1610 Remonstrance presented to the 1611 Hague Conference.

Procedural Wrangling in the Remonstrant Case at the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619)

299

and others suggested a middle course (Hales: 1673, 2:64) – the synod decided the next day to follow the third option: to supplement the decision by a further explanation, that declared that the synod had promised the Remonstrants that not only election, but also reprobation would be treated immediately afterward, as much as the synod judged sufficient. Such freedom to treat reprobation had already been allowed by the synod’s decision. But the decision had not mentioned that refuting would be allowed. The explanation conceded to the Remonstrants the freedom to refute – at least the views of Dutch Contra-Remonstrants, but not other Reformed theologians (ADSND, vol. 1, 77–79; vol. 2.2, 607–610). It is clear that the explanation softened the decision somewhat. In the same session, the eight foreign delegations gave their advice about the equity of the synod’s decision. All these delegations advised that the synod’s decision was fair and ought to be obeyed, and that election must be treated before reprobation. They repeatedly mentioned reasons for discussing election first (ADSND, vol. 1, 80; vol. 2.2, 612–640). These foreign recommendations are revealing, however, in their differing degrees of willingness to accommodate the Remonstrants. The English, Bremen and Nassau-Wetteravia delegations were the most moderate. The most hostile advice was from the Palatine and Genevan delegations.

The Remonstrants’ 29 December Conditions In the evening session of the 29th, the Remonstrants submitted a written reply to the synod’s decision and explanation (ADSND, vol. 2.2, 610–611; Acta et Scripta: 1620, 1:43). They asserted that they would fully explain and defend their view in writing, election first and then reprobation, and refute the contrary view of the Contra-Remonstrants and of those they considered orthodox. Like the synod’s explanation, this Remonstrant reply displayed a willingness to move a small step closer to the synod. Besides assuring the synod that the Remonstrants would treat election before reprobation, it made two concessions: (1) They were now willing to answer questions, though preferably in writing and only after presenting an explanation and defense of their own views; (2) Concerning the extent of their freedom, they promised not to misuse it and were willing to let the state delegates set reasonable time limits on their presentations. Though somewhat conciliatory, this reply was by no means an unconditional submission to the synod’s decision. The synod was not sensitive to the concessions that were made. It viewed the Remonstrant reply merely as a continuing refusal to submit except on their own conditions, rather than as a move toward accommodation in the procedural issue.

300

Donald Sinnema

The various delegations then gave their advice on the Remonstrant reply. Most of the foreign and Dutch delegations expressed their weariness with the Remonstrant actions and advised that if they would not submit they should be dismissed from the synod and be judged from their writings (Dwinglo: 1623, 115v–116r; Barlaeus: 1648, 523). The Remonstrants were then asked to answer by a simple yes or no whether they would submit to the synod’s decision. They answered that they adhered to their written reply. Since no progress could be made, the state delegates sent a delegation to the States General in The Hague to report on the obstinacy of the Remonstrants and to receive its direction (ADSND, vol. 1, 83; Dwinglo: 1623, 116v). Meanwhile, the Remonstrants drew up a paper in which they argued that for the opposing party to prescribe to them their manner of defending truth and fighting error was not simply a matter of procedure but a matter of conscience (ADSND, vol. 2.2, 644–650; Acta et Scripta: 1620, 1:144–149). The delegation returned from The Hague with a resolution from the States General, dated 1 January 1619. It approved the decisions of the synod and the state delegates, and commanded the Remonstrants to submit to them, or else face ecclesiastical and political censures. Should they continue in the same disobedience, the States General resolved that their opinions should be examined from their writings (ADSND, vol. 1, 84–87; vol. 2.2, 641–644). At this point, on 3 January Bogerman again tried to examine the Remonstrants individually by asking them questions. The common Remonstrant reply was that they could not in conscience follow any procedure other than that indicated by their 29 December conditions (ADSND, vol. 1, 87–92; Dwinglo: 1623, 119; 122v; Hales: 1673, 2:68–69). Again the proceedings were locked in an impasse.

Bogerman’s Questions and Articuli on the Remonstrant View Caught in a deadlock with the Remonstrants who refused to answer questions and submit unconditionally, the synod saw only one alternative: to begin implementing the States General’s 1 January resolution to examine the Remonstrants from their writings, if they would not cooperate. So in the evening of 3 January Bogerman called together a committee of sixteen leading Dutch and foreign delegates, as well as six state delegates, for a private meeting to discuss how to implement the government’s resolution. This committee thought it advisable that the President, assessors and secretaries extract the Remonstrant view from their writings, especially those written in their common name, and draw it up in a number of theses, with specific page references to sources. When approved by the synod, the theses would be read to

Procedural Wrangling in the Remonstrant Case at the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619)

301

the Remonstrants, and if they thought their view was not well understood, they could add a fuller explanation; but if they would remain silent, this would be taken as tacit approval (Heppe: 1853, 272; Hales: 1673, 2:70). On 4 January, the procedure suggested the night before was proposed to the synod. Bogerman also proposed that first some questions be drawn up from their writings in order better to determine their view – he added that he had some already prepared – and from these the theses could be formed. The synod approved this procedure (Heppe: 1853, 272; ADSND, vol. 1, 95–96). In the sessions of 5 and 7 January, Bogerman dictated to the synod the questions that he had prepared on Article One on the Remonstrant view of election (ADSND, vol. 1, 96–97; vol. 2.2, 705–716). They were examined by the Dutch professors, changed in some details, and approved by the synod (Dwinglo: 1623, 129v). On the 8th of January, Bogerman dictated to the synod “Theses” on Article One that had been drawn up from the Remonstrant writings (ADSND, vol. 1, 97; vol. 2.2, 717–723). On the 10th, the various delegations began presenting their advice on the Theses. The majority agreed that the Theses fairly represented the Remonstrant view, but many advised certain changes or additions (ADSND, vol. 2.2, 733–778). In the evening session, Bogerman then dictated some revisions to the Article One Theses, based on the suggestions offered by the delegations (ADSND, vol. 2.2, 779–781). The final version was titled Articuli pertaining to a fuller explanation of the Remonstrant view (ADSND, vol. 1, 98; vol. 2.2, 781–791). The synod then decided to recall the Remonstrants and ask them whether the Articuli represented their view. But it was judged neither necessary nor advisable to give the Remonstrants a copy of the Articuli (ADSND, vol. 1, 98–99). This denial to the Remonstrants of the synod’s summary of their view can well be seen as very inconsiderate, even given their uncooperative attitude.

Opportunities for Compromise The Remonstrants were recalled to the Friday morning session (11 January), after an absence of eight days. Bogerman wanted to try to examine them one more time. If the Remonstrants thought that the questions did not offer the opportunity for a full explanation of their view, he told them, they would be free to explain their position more fully afterward (Dwinglo: 1623, 131v). Then Bogerman began to pose a question to the Remonstrants from a prepared list (Dwinglo: 1623, 132r; ADSND, vol. 1, 100). Episcopius again refused to answer, and replied instead by reading a paper that repeated their 29 December conditions. If the synod would allow them the freedom to explain and defend their views as much as they considered necessary, and to refute opposing views,

302

Donald Sinnema

then they were ready to answer a thousand questions either in writing or orally. Without this freedom, they saw no reason to answer questions (ADSND, vol. 1, 100; vol. 2.2, 729–731). At this point, the debate about the extent of the freedom allowed to the Remonstrants flared up again. Now the specific issue was whether the Remonstrants should answer the questions before or after presenting their own explanations. The Remonstrants, who feared that their explanations would be confined within the limits of the questions, insisted that right order required their explanation first. Bogerman insisted that they first answer the questions, after which they might add a fuller explanation of what they thought was still lacking (Dwinglo: 1623, 132r–135v; ADSND, vol. 1, 100–105; Barlaeus: 1648, 525; Heppe: 1853, 275–276). Then Episcopius made a concession. The Remonstrants, he said, would not fight over a matter of order. If the freedom to explain, defend and refute as much as they thought necessary were granted to them, they were ready to receive the list of questions immediately and answer in writing. They would incorporate their answers in their explanations, or add them, if the synod desired, and submit them together with their explanations (Dwinglo: 1623, 135v). The concession here was a willingness to go halfway and present their written answers together with, rather than after, their explanations. Episcopius then asked for the list of questions, and many members of the synod indicated that they should be given. But Bogerman, supported by the state delegate Gregorius, refused, saying that it was not customary judicial procedure to hand written questions to cited persons. Bogerman then resumed the questioning, but the Remonstrants refused to answer (Dwinglo: 1623, 135v–136r; Barlaeus: 1648, 525). The most promising opportunity thus far for a compromise solution to the procedural issue was now lost. In the evening session, the various delegations gave their advice on whether it was time to examine the Remonstrants from their writings outside of their presence. Many of the foreign delegations thought that the Remonstrants that morning seemed to move closer to the synod, and so most advised that the list of questions be given to them to be answered in writing. On the other hand, the Dutch delegations advised that the Remonstrants be censured, and that their views be examined from their writings, as the 1 January resolution of the States General had authorized (ADSND, vol. 2.2, 812–831; Dwinglo: 1623, 137; Heppe: 1853, 277). Since most of the delegates were Dutch, the synod decided by majority no longer to question the Remonstrants but rather to examine their view of the Five Articles from their writings (ADSND, vol. 1, 106–107; Dwinglo: 1623, 137r). This decision was echoed by a resolution of the state delegates, which declared that the resolution of the States General was to be put into effect. However, until the

Procedural Wrangling in the Remonstrant Case at the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619)

303

following Monday they would still have the option to submit (ADSND, vol. 1, 107; vol. 2.2, 666–667). On 12 January, the state delegates summoned the Remonstrants privately to exhort them to reconsider their position and submit. After a heated debate, the Remonstrants repeated in writing the offer that Episcopius had made the day before – they were willing to add to their requested conditions that they were ready to answer questions on the Five Articles in writing and present them together with their explanations within a reasonable time. The state delegates said they could answer in writing or orally, but made a slight concession that their answers could be presented together with their explanations. Now both sides were nearly on the same ground on the procedural question, but their mutual mistrust prevented any further accommodation or agreement. The state delegates gave them until Monday to reconsider (Dwinglo: 1623, 138v–139v; ADSND, vol. 1, 485–488; Heppe: 1853, 278–279).

The Remonstrants Expelled On Monday the 14th of January, the state delegates reported to the synod on their meeting with the Remonstrants. They stated that their efforts had been in vain, since the Remonstrants still clung to their 29 December conditions. Nevertheless, they advised that the Remonstrants should be called in and commanded for the last time to submit (ADSND, vol. 1, 109–110). The assessors, secretaries and foreign delegates were then asked to give their advice. They unanimously declared that no more freedom could be granted to the Remonstrants and that they should be dismissed (ADSND, vol. 1, 110–111; Dwinglo: 1623, 139v–140r; Hales: 1673, 2:74–75). Without asking the Dutch delegates for advice, President Bogerman called in the Remonstrants and asked them to state categorically whether or not they would obey the States General and the synod (ADSND, vol. 1, 111–112). Episcopius replied by submitting a long document that contained their Explanation or Declaratio on Article One, and a refutation of Contra-Remonstrant opinions on this Article buttressed with quotations from their writings (Acta et Scripta: 1620, 2:3–46). Only the preface to this document was read. It affirmed that the Remonstrants could not in good conscience obey the synod’s decrees. But it also asserted that the Remonstrants would not contend about procedure, provided the other conditions they asked for were met (Acta et Scripta: 1620, 1:156–157). Then, after asking the Remonstrants if they persisted in their position and being assured that they did, Bogerman expelled them from the synod in a passionate speech. He rehearsed the synod’s dealings with the Remonstrants and accused them of great obstinacy, deceit, and lies. Finally, Bogerman exclaimed

304

Donald Sinnema

with great indignation, “Therefore, in the name of the state delegates and of the synod, you are dismissed. Get out! (Exite)” (ADSND, vol. 1, 112–113; Dwinglo: 1623, 142r–143r; Hales: 1673, 2:76–77). Bogerman’s manner of dismissing the Remonstrants was certainly open to critique and was offensive even to some members of the synod (Hales: 1673, 2:128). But the expulsion itself cannot be regarded as a decision made in a fit of anger. The synod had for some time considered it an option that the Remonstrants be examined and judged from their writings apart from their presence. The States General in its 1 January resolution had made the basic decision that the Remonstrants were to be judged from their writings if they would not submit. This government decision was merely put into effect by the 11 January decision of the synod and resolution of the state delegates. The foreign delegations also advised dismissal on the day it occurred. Since the Remonstrants remained unwilling to submit unconditionally even though they had offered some concessions, their expulsion was almost inevitable, considering the atmosphere charged with mistrust and misunderstanding. In the end, few procedural issues actually separated the two sides. After concessions on both sides, the only remaining differences were the following: (1) No agreement could be made on who would determine the extent of Remonstrant freedom: the synod or the Remonstrants. The synod wanted to retain the authority to set limits on such freedom in order to prevent Remonstrant abuse of it. The Remonstrants, on the other hand, feared that their freedom to defend and refute would be restricted if the synod set limits. Although they promised moderation and said the state delegates could determine time limits, this did not satisfy the synod. (2) There was no agreement on whether the Remonstrants would be free to refute “orthodox” foreign theologians. The Remonstrants viewed the turmoil in the Dutch churches as caused by the foreign influence of men like Theodore Beza and Johannes Piscator, and they wanted their extreme views checked. The synod and foreign delegates, however, saw criticism of foreign theologians as an infringement upon the jurisdiction of foreign churches and countries over their own theologians. The decisive factor that kept the two sides from further accommodation on procedure was their mutual mistrust and suspicion that led to misunderstandings on both sides. Even when concessions were made, these were sometimes not recognized as such, or the motives were considered suspect. In this atmosphere, agreement was impossible.

Procedural Wrangling in the Remonstrant Case at the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619)

305

Aftermath of the Expulsion After the expulson of the Remonstrants, the synod proceeded to examine their views from their writings. Since the state delegates required that they remain in Dordrecht, the Remonstrants continued to submit lengthy explanations and defenses of each of their Five Articles, most of which the synod read (Acta et Scripta: 1620, 2:47–370; 3:1–349). Meanwhile, a number of the theologians gave speeches on various aspects of the theological issues. The nineteen Dutch and foreign delegations drew up and presented their judgments on each of the Five Articles (Acta Synodi: 1620, 2:1–252; 3:1–292), and from these a committee of the synod drafted a single judgment of the Remonstrant position.5 Finally, after several drafts, on which the various delegations had the opportunity to suggest amendments, the synod approved the final version of the Canons of Dordt on 23 April.6 In its “Rejection of Errors” sections, the Canons rejected the basic Remonstrant views on predestination and related points, and in positive sections they also spelled out the orthodox Reformed position. On 24 April, the synod issued a personal Sentence of the cited Remonstrants that deposed them from their ecclesiastical offices (Acta Synodi: 1620, 1:275–277).

Bibliography Primary Sources Acta et Scripta (1620), Acta et Scripta Synodalia Dordracena Ministrorum Remonstrantium in Foederato Belgio, Harderwijk: Ex officina typographi synodalis. Acta Synodi (1620), Acta Synodi Nationalis, in Nomine Domini Nostri Iesu Christi, Autoritate Illustr. et Praepotentum Dd. Ordinum Generalium Foederati Belgii Provinciarum, Dordrechti Habitae Anno MDCXVIII et MDCXIX, Leiden: Elzevir. ADSND (2015, 2017), Acta et Documenta Synodi Nationalis Dordrechtanae, Donald Sinnema/Christian Moser/Herman J. Selderhuis (ed.), vol. 1, 2.2, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Barlaeus, Caspar (1648), Epistolica Narratio eorum quae in Synodo Dordracena gesta sunt, in: C. Hartsoeker/P. van Limborch (ed.), Praestantium ac Eruditorum Virorum Epistolae Ecclesiasticae et Theologicae, Amsterdam: Franciscus Halma, 513–527. Belijdenisgeschriften (1976), De Nederlandse Belijdenisgeschriften in Authentieke Teksten, J.N. Bakhuizen van den Brink (ed.), Amsterdam: Ton Bolland, 1976. [Dwinglo, Bernardus] (1623), Historisch Verhael van’t ghene sich toeghedraeghen heeft binnen Dordrecht, in de Jaeren 1618 ende 1619, [Amsterdam]. 5 For the drafting process, see: Sinnema: 2011, 291–311. 6 A critical edition of the Canons is printed in: Belijdenisgeschriften: 1976, 225–278.

306

Donald Sinnema

Hales, John (1673), Golden remains of the ever memorable Mr. John Hales of Eton College &c, London: Thomas Newcomb. Heppe, Heinrich (ed.) (1853), Historia synodi nationalis Dordracenae sive Literae delegatorum Hassiacorum de iis quae in Synodo Dordracena acta sunt ad Landgravium Mauritium missae, in: ZHTh 23, 226–327.

Secondary Literature Brandt, Geeraert (1704), Historie der Reformatie en andere Kerkelijke Geschiedenissen in en omtrent de Nederlanden, vol. 3, Rotterdam: Barent Bos. Israel, Jonathan (1998), The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall 1477–1806, Oxford: Clarendon. Sinnema, Donald (2011), The Drafting of the Canons of Dordt: A Preliminary Survey of Early Drafts and Related Documents, in: Aza Goudriaan/Fred van Lieburg (ed.), Revisiting the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619), Leiden: Brill, 291–311.

Erik A. de Boer

De Causa Ecclesiae Campensis or: How Four Local Ministers Ended up on the National Agenda1

The Synod of Dordt was a national event, but also a Western European one, since it involved a good many European Churches, theologians and men of state. The decisions of the Synod and its Canons in particular had a deep impact on congregations and office bearers in the Seven United Provinces. Still, out of all items on the agenda of the National Synod of Dordt in 1618–1619, the case of the Hanseatic city of Kampen in Overijssel stands out. Firstly because it concerned the Church in that one specific city, secondly because it concerned four local ministers, and thirdly because two of these ministers were on the list of Remonstrant leaders that were cited to appear before the Synod.2 Their names are: Thomas Goswinius, Everhardus Voscuijl, Assuerus Matthisius, and Johannes Schotlerus. A lot of questions come to mind. What was the importance of Goswinius and Matthisius for them to be among the initial twelve ‘cited’ Remonstrant leaders? Where they publicists or did they represent an important bulwark of opposition? Why were Kampen’s two remaining ministers, Everhardus Voscuijl and Johannes Schotlerus, also summoned to appear in Dordt? Interim minister Johannes Acronius represented Kampen at the Synod, but why was he the representative, seeing as he was a professor in Franeker? Among those Remonstrants who actually handed in their objections to the Heidelberg Catechism were Goswinius and Matthisius. Is there a connection to their specific case as ministers from Kampen? Is there any influence from the rector of Kampen’s Latin school,

1 Paper read at the Seventh Annual RefoRC Conference in Wittenberg, 10–12 May 2017 in the panel “Discipline Cases at the Synod of Dordt (1618–19)”. 2 The position of Goswinius and Matthisius was different from that of the two delegates from Remonstrant Utrecht, Samuel Naeranus from Amersfoort and Isaac Frederici from the city of Utrecht, who joined the group of cited Remonstrants on 10 December 1618 (ADSND 1, XCVII, CVII: Reitsma/Veen: 1892, 364–365). While the Synod of Overijssel admitted representatives from both classes Kampen, the Province of Utrecht was itself split into a Remonstrant and Contra-Remonstrant part, which each sent delegates to the National Synod.

308

Erik A. de Boer

Marcus Gualtherus, whose handwritten Observations or Remarks Against the Catechism (dated 1615) were found among his confiscated papers in 1622? The Acta et Documenta3 on this case consists of 75 documents in the official project list, but to this number some forty other letters can be added that were found by the present author in Dutch archives. The title of this paper, De causa Ecclesiae Campensis, is found on a dossier of documents which the council of the (Contra-Remonstrant part of) the Reformed church of Kampen placed before the Synod with a plea for help. In this paper we will describe the dossier’s contents in the national, provincial, and local context and analyze how it presents and represents the case of the four Kampen ministers. For comparison we will look at the province and city of Utrecht and the position of the Remonstrants there (Kaplan: 1995; Reitsma/Veen: 1892, 345–469).

Kampen and The Hague How important was the Hanseatic city of Kampen for the Synod of Dordt? In the early seventeenth century, Kampen was inhabited by merely 8000 people. Its economic prosperity had long been declining due to the siltation of its main source of commerce, the river IJssel. Most of the province Overijssel – Transisulania – was at the other side of the river and the other side of the Zuiderzee, far away from Amsterdam and The Hague. Yet Overijssel had been the final province to resist the pressure to convene a national synod, and in that province the city of Kampen had been the very last to give in. As late as April 1618, Prince Maurits wrote a letter to the city, but on 25 April the magistrate turned down his request for Kampen’s assent to convening a national synod. Only on 5 August 1618 did the city finally relent (cf. Veenhof: 1957, 255–267). Yet still the four ministers on the city’s payroll were staunch Remonstrants. The opposing Contra-Remonstrant congregation, founded in 1617, did not feel represented in the city council. Again, how important was the Hanseatic city of Kampen for the Synod of Dordt? On 20 September 1618, while the National Synod was still being organized, Casper ter Berchorst, Kampen’s delegate to the States General, reported to the magistrates: “For many great men have their eyes on us and our city” (SAK, archive 001, inv.nr. 108). However small Kampen as a city might have been, The Hague took notice of the political and religious constellation in the province of Overijssel. Even the European partners at the Synod of Dordt could not help but notice the case of Kampen. In March 1619, Jean Diodati, representative from 3 Acta et Documenta Synodi Nationalis Dordrechtanae (1618–1619). Acta of the Synod of Dordt (vol. 1), Donald Sinnema/Christian Moser/Herman J. Selderhuis (ed.) (=ADSND), 2015.

How Four Local Ministers Ended up on the National Agenda

309

Geneva at the National Synod in Dordt, wrote a letter to his colleague Benedict Turretini, in which he presented the following impression of the state of affairs in the city of Kampen: Regarding Kampen, where the Arminian ministers have reigned and blasphemed wildly and have falsified doctrine by apparent Socinianism, strongly supported by the people and the Magistrate, while the Synod had cited them. And having been rebellious they were suspended, and the Magistrate bowed before the Synod’s instruction. One hopes that the poor people will conduct themselves everywhere as easily, provided that they have prudent and wise ministers.4

The fact that Kampen’s four ministers were deposed during the Synod is a fact, known from historiography of the Synod of Dordt. The sequence of events can be traced in the Acta5 or in is counterpart, the Acta et scripta. The bare historical accounts of these events do not dispute one another’s facts. What more can the archival papers tell us?

Archival Sources The Oud-Synodaal Archief of the Dutch Reformed Church has two extensive sets of documents about the four ministers from Kampen (OSA, C and L). Volume C contains a comprehensive but unorganized file of documents on the situation of the Church in Kampen. Coming to the end of folio 202v someone, probably taking stock of the documents, wrote at the bottom of the page: “The issues that pertain to the Kampen case are contained in 104 folios, sometimes written, sometimes unwritten [meaning ‘copied’, EAdB].”6 While volume C contains (many) original documents and letters, volume L seems to offer a couple of dossiers in which the relevant documents have been ordered and (often) translated into Latin, so that they could be used during the Synod. Volume L also contains a set of documents with the title De causa Ecclesiae Campensis, “On the Case of the Church of Kampen”. This dossier is important for this paper, because it contains: • a cover letter by the Church council, written in Dutch and dated 28 November 1618; • the Latin and Dutch handwritten text of what would be Johannes Acronius’ speech, in which twelve points of accusations against the Remonstrant min-

4 Diotati to Turretini, 27 February/9 March 1619, in: Fornerod: 2012, 314v. 5 Acta: 1620a; Acta: 1620b. Supplemented by Kuyper: 1899, 213–222. 6 OSA, C indeed contains on f. 98v–202v. a collection of relevant documents, although not in any right order.

310

• • •

Erik A. de Boer

isters were specified, signed by the “deputies of the Reformed congregation in Kampen”; a set of twelve “Essential Theses of Both Parties’ Opinions on Today’s Differences”, containing in the left column “the opinions of some” (representing the Contra-Remonstrants) and in the right “the opinions of others” (the Remonstrants), also in Dutch; relevant parts of the acts of the Provincial Synod of Overijssel, held on 29 September 1618, and the defense of the four ministers delivered there;7 a copy of the letter of authorization for the delegates of the Remonstrant classis, signed by its praeses Voscuijl and assessor Matthisius (who happened to be both from Kampen).

The dossier which the Contra-Remonstrant Church brought to Dordt to present her case before the Synod comprises the cover letter and four basic documents. In the cover letter the Kampen Church council presented itself as follows: We, the elders and deacons of the old and after God’s holy Word truly reformed religion in the city Kampen, hereby confess and testify: While our beloved Church already for some time has been and is still being saddened by these ministers, our dire need demands that our Church be helped at once in such troubles, and we hope this will happen, by God’s grace, in the present National Synod.8

This letter of 28 November 1618 mentions the names of the four ministers and also of the three deputies who would speak on behalf of Kampen (Geert Pieters, Lubbert van Hardenberg and Gerrit Vene), “to whom we grant full power to present our complaint in the best possible way, and we ask and expect them to deal with this properly”. This letter also introduces as fourth deputy: Johannes Acronius, who was a professor from Franeker and who had been interim-minister in Kampen for three months. Volume L further contains a second file of documents (f. 192r–259r). These documents can be regarded as depositions from Kampen ministers, elders, and citizens, substantiating the accusations. This file ends with a copy of a booklet, written by Johannes Schotlerus and inserted in the bound volume. The title is: Brevis et perspicua praecipuorum fidei capitum delineatio concinnata a Johanne Schotlero Iserlonenso (1618), “A Short and Clear Outline of the Main chapters of Faith as Preached by Johannes Schotlerus of Iserlohn”. I assume that the author sent the booklet personally in order to exonerate himself (albeit in vain).

7 Latin translation of the Provincial Synod’s acts in: OSA, C, 156r–157v. 8 OSA, L, 106v.

How Four Local Ministers Ended up on the National Agenda

311

Chronology of the Kampen Case Five phases can be distinguished in the Synod’s dealings with the Kampen ministers. These phases present an overview of the National Synod as a whole and help us pinpoint the moments which are relevant to this paper. The first phase is described in the partial minutes of the Provincial Synod Overijssel. As second phase can be regarded the appointment of delegations to the Synod and the citation of Remonstrant leaders. The third phase is the procedural debate between the Synod and the Remonstrants under the leadership of Simon Episcopius. Within that phase falls the speech of Johannes Acronius (19 December 1618), the arrest of Willem Berentsz – a printer from Kampen – and the presentation of the Observationes in Catechesin by Goswinius and Matthisius (28 December). Phase four of the ‘casus ecclesiae Campensis’ covers the months of January and February of 1619 and ends with the suspension of Schotlerus and Voscuijl (session 169) (Kuyper: 1899, 213f). The final phase comprises the Sententia on the cited Remonstrants in May 1619, and their subsequent banishment (July 1619). The material from the Kampen case which we are currently analyzing is relevant for the first three phases.

Provincial Synod Overijssel Formally, the story begins with the Provincial Synod of Overijssel of late September/early October 1618, which was regarded as praeparatoria for the National Synod. The classis Kampen had already split into a Remonstrant and a ContraRemonstrant party, yet both parties were represented at the Provincial Synod (the first to be held since 1615) (Reitsma/Veen: 1896, 298–311).9 Thomas Goswinius, senior pastor of the city of Kampen, and elder Marcus Gualtherus, rector of the Latin School, were admitted as representatives of the Remonstrant classis. Johannes Schotlerus, officially minister in the village Camperveen but in the meantime transferred to the city, was also present. The Contra-Remonstrant classis was represented by Hieronymus Vogellius, the Hasselt minister temporarily serving in Kampen, and Georgius Goykerus, minister of the city of Wilsum (Reitsma/Veen: 1896, 299). On the agenda of the Provincial Synod were a number of grievances from the respective classes against the Remonstrant ministers from Kampen. In one of the sessions, Assuerus Matthisius and Everhardus Voscuijl – the two other ministers 9 Text 0681 will be published in ADSND. Regionaal Archief Dordrecht contains a transcript (archive 150, inv. nr. 1515).

312

Erik A. de Boer

from the city – defended themselves in writing. At the end, the minutes state that Goswinius, Matthisius and Voscuijl “still stand as accused (sub reatu) and must seek to redeem themselves properly, or else bear their punishment according to the Church order” (Reitsma/Veen: 1896, 310 [art. 48]). The minutes do not state that the Remonstrants appealed to the National Synod. While the “Five points” are referred to in the National Synod, the Remonstrants were asked at the very beginning of the Provincial Synod “whether they recognized this meeting and the coming National one as a legitimate Synod, and were willing to submit themselves [to their judgement]”, to which both Goswinius and Schotlerus answered affirmative (but with some reservation) (Reitsma/Veen: 1896, 299 [art. 4]). Among the six deputies from Overijssel to the National Synod were also the honorable Jan van der Lawick, one of majors of the city Kampen, and Vogellius, “minister in Hasselt and on loan now in Kampen”. More on the latter – author of a booklet written against the Kampen ministers – below. The minutes of the Provincial Synod were copied and sent to the other provinces, so that they were informed when the matter would be brought to the National Synod’s table. The Kampen case, however, was laid before the National Synod, claiming that the Remonstrant ministers had appealed to that right in the Provincial Synod. However, the proceedings of the Provincial Synod do not state this clearly. This appeal to the National Synod is found in the letter sent by the Remonstrant classis Kampen, which authorized its delegates to the Provincial meeting. The classis stipulated firstly that decisions from the other classes could not be accepted as judgment on the Remonstrants, but only as input for a real conference. The second stipulation was that the booklet written by the four Kampen ministers was not to be judged in any way before each of the four had been able to react to critique. The final stipulation explains why the Provincial Synod claimed that the Remonstrants had appealed to the National Synod. The Remonstrant classis had instructed its delegates “not to accept it when someone at one side or the other would be harassed on the Five points, treated in the Conference of The Hague, but that this should be left until further insight of the National Synod”. The letter of authorization was signed by the acting president and the secretary of the Remonstrant classis, Voscuijl and Matthisius respectively.10 Thus the fourth and fifth document in the dossier De causa Ecclesiae Campensis provide the official documentation of the origin of the case in the (split) classis Kampen and in the Provincial Synod of Overijssel. These texts informed the delegates to the National Synod about the Church’s political background.

10 OSA, C, 145r–v; L, 116v–117r (part of the file De causa Ecclesiae Campensis). In ADSND this text is nr. 0681.

How Four Local Ministers Ended up on the National Agenda

313

Acronius’ Speech An ideal introduction to the Kampen case, from a Contra-Remonstrant perspective of course, is the speech by Professor Johannes Acronius, interim-minister in Kampen (the speech was added in Latin and Dutch to the dossier). In twelve points he tells the story of how the disturbance of the religious peace and the disruption of civil spirit among friends and family not only turned into bitter hatred, but also that the faithful were greatly pestered, the state of the Church was harshly offended and destroyed, and all who steadfastly kept to the pure Reformed religion were treated inequitably and were oppressed. The starting point of the rise of Remonstrantism in Kampen can be set during the 1610s, leading up to 1615, in which yearn Thomas Goswinius (ca.1569–>1625) and Everhardus Voscuijl (ca.1584–>1628) clashed with Daniel Souterius (London 1571–Haarlem 1634), which led to the latter’s departure from Kampen. Souterius had come to the city in 1605, Voscuijl in 1610.11 Acronius accused all four ministers of alien doctrine which had begun with Thomas and Voscuijl when they defended the following teaching against their colleague Daniel Souterius: that Christ has really died for each and every person without distinction, without exception of even one; that Adam’s sin had been forgiven, and that children have no hereditary sin. That God has given sufficient grace and power to all men to accept salvation – even to Indians who worship the devil – as in God’s heart is also the law of nature, engrafted in him, leads him, so that men can attain salvation, if only they follow this lead and use the grace they received properly; that also sheep of Christ really can turn into goats and depart from salvation; that also God has made not decree to reject anyone, but calls all men to salvation and promises this to all that are lost (OSA, L, f. 110v). It was primarily Voscuijl – considered the instigator – who pushed these points, but Thomas (as Goswinius, a Kampen-born man and senior pastor, was always called) had been heard voicing similar thoughts. They are labelled as “two not particularly learned preachers” who without seeking ecclesiastical approval and without sufficient knowledge had voiced such thoughts. Another accusation, written by the Church council and read by Acronius, was that Wilhelmus Stephani, called to Kampen to replace Souterius in 1615, was let 11 Evert (Everhardus) Voscuijl, born ca. 1584 probably in Amsterdam, served the Reformed church of Vreeland, Utrecht, in 1606–1609. In Kampen, he and his wife, Beeltgen Jans, drew up their will in 1611, probably following their wedding (the pair had no children). Everhardus is often referred to as D. Voscuijl and served as medical doctor after his dismissal from Kampen in 1619. Cf. the title of Everart Voskuyl, Medicijn-meester voor ’t verwonde Nederlandt, ontdeckende, Aen een daer over bedroefde inwoonder d’oorsake van de wonde ende middel om te ghenesen. WWt liefde tot zijn Vaderlant, ende bysonder tot de Ghemeenthe van Campen, ende zyne vrienden opgespeurt (1620).

314

Erik A. de Boer

go of again in early 1616 as well.12 A Contra-Remonstrant deacon, Lubbertus van Hardenberg (at that point one of Kampen’s representatives in the Synod), had earlier been dismissed from the Church council. Goswinius is recognized as legitimate minister, but the legitimacy of the other three is called into question. Voscuijl seems to have been called to the city by the magistrates rather than by the Church council. Assuerus Matthisius had been deposed in Deventer in 1617 and had been enlisted into Kampen service by the Remonstrant party, while Johannes Schotlerus from the village of Camperveen had been transferred to the city in 1618. A related accusation against the Remonstrant ministers was that the city dominated the village churches of the classis. They were accused of meddling in the neighboring classis of Steenwijk (where Voscuijl used his position as deputatus synodi to advance Remonstrant candidates in vacant posts). In Acronius’ speech, two further pieces of writing were brought to the Synod’s attention.13 The first (not included in the file De causa Ecclesiae Campensis) is a pamphlet, published in name of all four Remonstrant ministers: “Sincere and Clear Message”. It is often referred to as the Campensium confessionem (Gelderen/Ravensbergen: 2000, 59). The pamphlet itself is not found in the Dordt archive, but a translation into Latin was produced in handwriting (Libellus pastorum Campensium).14 The second is an anonymous document, distributed by Voscuijl, described as “Twelve articles” and inserted in the dossier with the title “Simple presentation of both parties’ opinions on the present differences” (Naeckte stellinge van beyder parthyen meeninge over die Hederdaechse verschillen). These two texts point to the popularization of Remonstrant thought. In the preface of their pamphlet “Sincere and Clear Message”, the four ministers warned that it was possible that some other writings were published as “[their] confession”. They mention that some time ago “some rough draft” was put on paper and could have fallen into the hands of third persons who could have it published, “but which we will not recognize as our Confession, since it was not yet inspected by all of us”. The fourth minister who would lend his name to “Sincere and Clear Message” was Johannes Schotlerus, who had at that moment yet to transfer from the village Camperveen to the city of Kampen. The “Simple presentation” is the very document that was included in the file Casus Ecclesiae 12 Wilhelmus Stephani, born in Cologne ca.1570, served in Wesel and Düsseldorf. He was court preacher of the Elector, the Duke of Brandenburg. On 24 November 1615 he accepted the call to Kampen, but returned to Arnhem before 15 July 1616. On 20 February 1619 he was called again to Kampen, where he stayed until his death in 1636. 13 Although not found in Casus Ecclesiae Campensis, yet another document is preserved among the Dordt documents and inserted among the papers pertaining to Kampen: The pamphlet Tafereel (by Reinier Telle), which the four ministers supposedly had reprinted in Kampen, according to Acronius in his address (OSA, C, 189v–191r; cf. Reitsma/Van Veen: 1896, 301). 14 OSA, C, 153r–155v. A critical edition is in course of preparation and is scheduled to appear in ADSND 6.

How Four Local Ministers Ended up on the National Agenda

315

Campensis, sent by the Contra-Remonstrant party to the Synod. It did not help that the ministers had somewhat distanced themselves from this early version of their thoughts. The Contra-Remonstrant party kept a copy of a handwritten text, not found in any other archive, on the case they were building and handed it to the Synod. Was Everardus Voscuijl also the author of that rough draft of the “Simple presentation of both parties’ opinions on the present differences”? Acronius stated in his speech that Voscuijl had distributed the twelve aphorismi (as Acronius’ Latin text reads) at people’s houses and had made sure everyone had a copy. The Kampen delegation requested of the Synod that “the real author of these articles be tracked and made known” (OSA, L, f. 111r [point V]). They also demanded that the printer of the pamphlet “Sincere and Clear Message” be arrested on the spot as he was identified among the public at the Synod of Dordt. Printer Thomas Berentsz. was indeed apprehended and questioned the next day. Then why did Contra-Remonstrant Kampen present the rough draft of an older pamphlet to the Synod, instead of adding the recently published one, the “Sincere and Clear Message”, to the dossier for the time being? The rough draft had already been publicly discounted by the authors and did not circulate, while the pamphlet was widely disseminated in three separate editions, all published within the same year in the city of Kampen. Since Vogellius had already written an extensive refutation of his “Sincere and Clear Counter-Message”, the rough draft could serve as the discovered ‘smoking gun’, showing how early and how audaciously Remonstrantism had been popularized. A very specific complaint is that the four Kampen ministers had slandered good Reformed theologians from the Low Countries and abroad as “teachers of a new falsehood”. This was played brilliantly in the National Synod with its representation of Reformed churches from other European countries. At the end of Acronius’ speech on behalf of Kampen, the Synod was asked to dismiss the four ministers so that others could be called upon “to help the saddened congregation”. The second and third text in the file De causa Ecclesiae Campensis point to the perceived danger of the popular dissemination of the four ministers’ theology. This popularization of Remonstrant theology had to be countered, as can be established in the following formats and editions: Firstly, their collective pamphlet “Sincere and Clear Message” was published in three different editions in the year 1617 (Goswinius/Vosculius/Assuerus/ Schotlerus: 1617; cf. Van der Pol: 2008, 244–256). Secondly, a one-page abstract of the pamphlet was published as well as Uyttoch [abstract, EAdB] van ‘t Ghevoelen der Predicanten te Campen, hier-onderbenoemt, over ‘t stuck van de Predestinatie met den aencleve vandien (Kampen:

316

Erik A. de Boer

Thomas Berendts, 1618). The abstract contains only the fourteen Remonstrant theses with biblical references. Thirdly, the text of the twelve aphorismi as distributed by Voscuijl and presented to the Synod in manuscript were published in the file Casus Ecclesiae Campensis. This is enough to show that the Kampen’s Remonstrant ministers advertised the stand they took throughout the city. However, was it enough to wreak nationwide havoc on a local pamphlets? The Kampen case was publicized as a matter of national importance in a refutation written by Hieronymus Vogellius, the very preacher who would be among the Overijssel delegates to Dordt. He penned no fewer than 260 pages of critique on a twenty-page pamphlet. His “Sincere and Clear Counter-Message” was published not in Kampen, but in Amsterdam (by Marten Jansz. Brandt in the “Ghereformeerde Catechismus”). Vogellius advertised himself on the title page as “Hieronymus Vogellius, Confessor and Teacher of True Reformed Doctrine in the Church of Christ in Hasselt”. The polemicist chose a stunning metaphor to highlight the impact of the Five articles of the Remonstrants on the Reformed church in the Low Countries. They were the “five new wounds inflicted on the peaceful body of the Church of Jesus Christ” (Vogellius: 1618, **2v). Although Reformed doctrine did not treasure mystical focus on the suffering Christ, his “five wounds” were a familiar image. The author saw these damages to the Church in Holland but also recognized it in Overijssel: The body of the Church and doctrine there, as by hired hands and hurt by those five wounds has helped – Lord, have mercy! – those in our province so much that they have wounded Christ in his true Church and doctrine, have further nailed Him to the cross, tried to raise Him crucified, for his enemies to see, to despise (Vogellius: 1618, **3v).

It is with such intensity that Vogellius announces the pamphlet of the Kampen ministers, “Sincere and Clear Message”, which was “signed by the four of them, as if by their hands they wrote with Pilate the superscription of Christ’s crucifixion, in the rejection of His doctrine and Church”. The aim of his own pamphlet is to analyze and rectify some 250 (“omtrent derdehalf hondert”) quotations from Reformed authors in the Kampen pamphlet. Vogellius did so in May 1618, which is when finally even the magistrates in Kampen consented to a National Synod.

How Four Local Ministers Ended up on the National Agenda

317

Codification in the Acts The Kampen case can be traced by scanning the minutes of the Synod’s subsequent sessions. What kept this case well-known, however, were not these rather brief entries, but the full-length inclusion of Acronius’ oration in the Acta. While the official acts (now published for the first time in volume one of ADSND)15 did not include this text, Acronius’ speech was added to the contemporary editions meant for full disclosure of the Synod’s dealings. In the Latin editions, the text was added to the minutes of session 36 at its chronological place (19 December 1618).16 However, in the Dutch folio edition, Acronius’ tale of Kampen’s misery in twelve points was removed from its place in between the sequence of sessions, and was printed at the very end of the first part of the Acta (1621a, 380–386). This editorial decision was made with the aim of emphasizing the six folio pages even more to their readers. Part 1, containing the minutes of the whole of the Synod as such, thus ended with a reminder to the public of how one of the churches had been in danger from Remonstrant heresy. Part 2, containing the statements of the European delegates, was preceded by the same reminder. The last line named Johannes Acronius, with the authorization: “In the name and by order of the delegates from the Reformed church of Campen, signed by his own hand.” Thus the peroration of the public Acts was dedicated to that exemplary case of the city and Church of Kampen, whose appeal to the National Synod had not been in vain. Together with the preface, these texts formed an inclusion of the Acts. The preface had told the story of the emergence of Remonstrantism. As an illustration of the Remonstrants’ intolerance, the following example from the year 1616 is related: Around this time the ministers of Kampen in Overijssel, who had embraced the opinion of the Remonstrants, have with the help of the magistrate removed from his office their fellow servant Wilhelmus Stephani, doctor in Sacred Theology, a very learned man who stood steadfast in the truth. They also have tried to make the reformed religion hated among the people by use of printed pamphlets and public preaching full of defamation (Acta 1621a, f. ϯϯϯ iif).

Acronius would return to this episode in the seventh of his twelve points of accusation against the Kampen Remonstrants. Since that year, 1616, the fate of Kampen had been on the agenda of the Contra-Remonstrants so-called ‘secret synods’, held in Amsterdam in the years 1616 and 1617.17 In the minutes of the ‘secret synod’ of 1616, Festus Hommius – who became one of the two scribae of 15 ADSND, vol. 2/2 (2017). 16 Acta: 1620a, 324–329; Acta: 1620b, 140–145; Acta: 1621d, 184–189. 17 See De Boer: 2015, 353–361. When Stephani was dismissed Johannes Schotlerus from Camperveen was called to the city in his place.

318

Erik A. de Boer

Dordt, was author of the official copy of the Acta, and responsible for their publication – had noted: The dire need of the Church of Kampen – which has separated in a remarkable number from the Remonstrants, who are attending sermons in the villages and are planning to institute a Church in some order [een forme van kercke] to keep together more effectively and to bring order to the service [of God] – [made the meeting] of pure ministers from all seven provinces [decide] that this congregation should be comforted, supported and helped, and that therefore Dr. Wilhelmus Stephani shall speak to this end to the said congregation, which he knows best at such time and place as he will write to them […].18

While the Acta of the National Synod of Dordt always kept the memory of the Kampen case alive, the archival sources (which are in the process of being edited in ADSND) put flesh to the bare bones of that particular case. They especially highlight the Synod’s aim and method for countering the dissemination of Remonstrant theology among the public. The case of the Church and city of Kampen seems to have been regarded as exemplary, and worthy of singling out. All this in order to tell the tale of how the victorious Counter-Remonstrant party wanted the struggle on the Five Articles to be remembered.

Bibliography Primary Sources Acta (1620a). Acta synodi nationalis, in nomine Domini nostri Jesu Christi, auctoritate DD. Ordinum Generalium Foederati Belgii provinciarum, Dordrechti habitae Anno 1618– et 1619, Dordrecht: Isaac Jansz. Canin, In-2°. Acta (1620b): Acta synodi nationalis, in nomine Domini nostri Jesu Christi, auctoritate DD. Ordinum Generalium Foederati Belgii provinciarum, Dordrechti habitae Anno 1618– et 1619, Dordrecht: Isaac Jansz. Canin, In-4°. Acta (1621a). Acta ofte Handelinghen des Nationalen Synodi inden name onses Heeren Jesu Christi ghehouden tot Dordrecht, Anno 1618 ende 1619 Dodrecht: Isaac Jansz. Canin, In-2°. Acta (1621b). Acta ofte Handelinghen des Nationalen Synodi inden name onses Heeren Jesu Christi ghehouden tot Dordrecht, Anno 1618 ende 1619 Dodrecht: Isaac Jansz. Canin, In-4°. Fornerod, Nicolas (ed.) (2012), Registres de la Compagnie des Pasteurs de Genève, vol. XIV (1618–1619), Genève: Librairie Droz. Gelderen, J. van/Ravensbergen, Chr. (ed.) (2000), Classicale Acta 1573–1620, vol. 6, Provinciale Synode Overijssel, Den Haag: Instituut voor Nederlandse Geschiedenis. 18 Original text edited in: De Boer: 2015, 355f.

How Four Local Ministers Ended up on the National Agenda

319

Goswinius, Thomas/Vosculius, Everharrdus/Matthisius, Assuerus/ Schotlerus, Johannes (1617), Oprecht ende Claer Bericht. Waer in Cortelijck teghens een ander ghestelt is: I Wat die Predicanten van Campen hier ondergeschreven van die heden daechse verschillen Overt’stuck van die Predestinatie met den ancleve van dien, voor die oude Suyvere Waerheijt nae Godes woort gevoelen, II Wat die selvige oock daer tegens als Onwaerheyden ende niuwichheijden (uijt verscheijdene Schriften van sommighe ten huidigendage Suijver-genoemde Leeraers getrouwelijcc uijtgetrocken) van geheeler herten verwerpen. Ter noot in Druck verveerdiget tot onderrichtinge der eenvoudigen, tegens alle sulcke Lasteringen, Waermede Sij dies angaende van Niuwicheijden ende gemaeckte veranderingen in die Leere, Valschelijck Worden beworpen, Campen: W. Berendtss in S. Lucas; Campen: W. Berendtss in S. Lucas; Campen: P. Hendricksz van Wijnringen; Campen: Wed. Hendrick Thomasz. Kuyper, H.H. (1899), De Post-acta of Nahandelingen van de Nationale Synode van Dordrecht 1618–1619, Naar de Authentieke Tekst in het Latijn en Nederlandsch Uitgegeven en van Aantekeningen Voorzien, Voorafgegaan door de Geschiedenis van de Acta, de Autographa en de Post-acta dier Synode, Gevolgd door de Geschiedenis van de Revisie der Belijdenissen en der Liturgie, Benevens de Volledige Lijst der Gravamina op de Dordtsche Synode Ingediend. Een Historische Studie, Amsterdam: Hövecke & Wormser. Reitsma, J./Veen, S.D. van (1896), Acta der Provinciale en Particuliere Synoden, Gehouden in de Noordelijke Nederlanden Gedurende de Jaren 1572–1620, vol. 5 (Zeeland 1579–1620; Overijssel 1584–1620), Groningen: J.B. Wolters. Reitsma, J./Veen, S.D. van (1892), Acta der Provinciale en Particuliere Synoden, Gehouden in de Noordelijke Nederlanden Gedurende de Jaren 1572–1620, vol. 6, Groningen: J.B. Wolters. Sinnema, Donald/Moser, Christian/Selderhuis, Herman J. (ed.) (2015), Acta et Documenta Synodi Nationalis Dordrechtanae (1618–1619). Acta of the Synod of Dordt (vol. 1), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Vogelius, Hieronymus (1618), Opreght en Claer Tegen-beright tegen ’t Libel by den Kamperen Remonstrantschen Leeraren Thomam Goswinum, Everhardum Voscuilium, Assuerem Matthisium, Joannem Schotlerum […], Amsterdam.

Secondary Literature Boer, E.A. de (2015), Doleantie en Afscheiding in 1616–1618, Voorafgaand aan de Nationale Synode te Dordrecht, in: Erik A. de Boer/Harm J. Boiten (ed.), Godsvrucht in geschiedenis. Bundel ter gelegenheid van het afscheid van prof. dr. F. van der Pol als hoogleraar aan de Theologische Universiteit Kampen, Heerenveen: Royal Jongbloed, 353–366. Kaplan, Benjamin J. (1995), Calvinists and Libertines. Confession and Community in Utrecht, 1578–1620, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Pol, Frank van der (2008), A “Sincere and Clear Message”. Four Remonstrant Ministers against the Falsehoods and Innovations of Calvin, in: Herman J. Selderhuis (ed.), Calvin sacrarum literarum interpres, RHT 5, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 244–256.

320

Erik A. de Boer

Veenhof, J. (1957), Het Remonstrantisme te Kampen tot de Regeringsverandering in 1620, Kamper Almanak 1957–1958, 255–267.

Dolf te Velde

Collateral Damage? The Condemnation of Conrad Vorstius by the Synod of Dordt

Introduction During its final sessions, on 4 May 1619, the Synod of Dordt issued a statement condemning an extensive set of doctrinal errors ascribed to Conrad Vorstius. Why did the Synod proceed against a man whose career had already been broken in 1611–1612 by the cancellation of his professorate at Leiden university? Was Vorstius an accidental victim of the campaign against the Remonstrants, or was something more fundamental at stake? This paper seeks to find answers in the material produced by the Synod itself and in a few related sources. In brief, the relevant proceedings of the Synod were as follows: after the Remonstrants as a group had been expelled (January 14, 1619) (ADSND, vol. 1, 113) and the exposition of the Reformed doctrine in the Canons had been completed (April 24, 1619) (ADSND, vol. 1, 144), a number of individual cases were conducted. Within two weeks, the Synod dealt with the wild heterodoxy of the Geesteranus brothers (ADSND, vol. 1, 144–145), the delicate and classified case from Friesland about the teachings of Johannes Maccovius (ADSND, vol. 1, 145–147; 153–154), and the case of Conrad Vorstius. The deliberations on Vorstius started on May 2 with the instruction issued by the States General, that the Synod should investigate the writings of Vorstius and come to a judgment on the question whether his theology and doctrine could be tolerated within the Reformed churches of the Netherlands. On that same day, an extensive List of Errors ascribed to Vorstius was read in the plenary session of the Synod (ADSND, vol. 1, 150–151). Interestingly, the Synod tabled a personal letter from Conrad Vorstius written to all Synod delegates (ADSND, vol. 1, 151),1 in which he expressed his regret over the suspicions raised against him, and in which he asked for a friendly colloquium so that he could be heard in person about his doctrinal 1 The original letter is stored among the autographs in the Oud-Synodaal Archief (Old Synodal Archive; OSA) in Utrecht, inventory number C, 96r–98r. The letter was also published in Hartsoeker: 1684, 578–579.

322

Dolf te Velde

views. Moreover, since Vorstius had often been accused of sympathizing with the heterodox views of Faustus Socinus, he made an offer to write a refutation of Socinus and his theology. The Synod, however, did not accept Vorstius’s offer of having an oral discussion, and decided to base its decision on his published writings. The next day, all delegations from the Dutch provinces and from abroad handed in their written judgements (ADSND, vol. 1, 151).2 Because these judgments did not completely agree, some more deliberation was needed to formulate a common statement that could be subscribed by all delegates. On Saturday morning, a draft of the Synod’s judgment was read an discussed, and after some further amendments it was unanimously accepted on Saterday afternoon, May 4, 1619 (ADSND, vol. 1, 152–153). Before discussing the dealings of the Synod with the Vorstius case, it is necessary to provide some background information. Conrad Vorstius was born in Cologne on July 19, 1569 as child of Roman Catholic parents. Having converted to the Reformed faith, the young Conrad received his theological education in Herborn under Johannes Piscator, and after a peregrinatio academica that took him through Heidelberg, Basel, and Geneva, he became a professor of theology at the gymnasium of Steinfurt. During his 15 years of tenure, he published treatises on the doctrines of predestination, the Trinity, and the Person and work of Christ. He also contributed to the Reformed polemics against the Catholic controversialist Robert Cardinal Bellarmine. Most well-known is the book in which Vorstius published his disputations held on the nature and attributes of God, the Tractatus de Deo. In the second edition of 1610, Vorstius added lengthy explanatory notes to elements of the original disputations that had raised concerns in Reformed theological circles. In 1610, the curators of Leiden University called him as the successor to Jacob Arminius. Especially the States of Holland, headed by their pensionary Johan van Oldebarnevelt, and influential church ministers such as Johannes Wtenbogaert strongly supported his candidacy. From the very beginning of his career, however, Vorstius had found himself suspected of harbouring Socinian sympathies, not only in view of the particular doctrines of the divine nature of Christ and of Christ’s satisfaction, but also in terms of his general approach to theology. While these early accusations had been put to rest by a statement made by Vorstius before the theological faculty of Heidelberg, his nomination as a professor at Leiden again led to open and sustained accusations of Socinianism. Vorstius’s main opponent was Sibrandus Lubbertus, professor of theology at Franeker, the second academy instituted in the Seven Provinces after the university of Leiden. Multiple ecclesiastical and political instances were involved in the question. At the end of a two-year struggle, the intervention of the English King James I led to the definitive dismissal of Vorstius from his chair in 2 Autographs of these judgments are in: OSA, C, 205–242.

Collateral Damage? The Condemnation of Conrad Vorstius by the Synod of Dordt

323

Leiden. After the ultimate condemnation by the Synod of Dordt, Vorstius died in exile in 1622.3 In what follows, the proceedings of the Synod concerning Vorstius will be examined in three steps. First, I will review the final Sentence of condemnation, in order to have a general sense of the themes that were at stake. Next, I will examine the List of Errors that was read at the beginning of the Synod’s dealings with Vorstius, in order to see which specific statements from Vorstius’s own writings came under scrutiny. Third, I will discuss the various judgments drafted by the national and foreign delegations, in order to understand the theological and ecclesiastical factors that ultimately determined the Vorstius case.

Sentence and List of Errors The official Sentence in which Vorstius was condemned contains five levels of charges against Vorstius.4 First, it states quite generally that his teachings run against not only some particular points but against the main articles of the Christian religion.5 Second, the Sentence charges Vorstius with supporting the Remonstrant opinions that had already been condemned by the Synod.6 Third, it lists (without further explanation) his specific errors in the fundamental doctrines of the Trinity, the divine nature and attributes, creation and providence, natures and person of Christ, satisfaction and justification.7 Fourth, the Sentence notes that Vorstius calls many received concepts and distinctions into question – without providing a positive exposition – and in turn, the Sentence claims that this is a threat to the certainty of the doctrine of the Reformed church.8 Fifth, the 3 For a survey of Vorstius’s life and theology, see the doctoral dissertation of Mellby (1901), and the two extensive essays by Schweizer (1856/57). A substantial update is provided by Röser (1988); for another recent discussion, see Rohls: 2005, esp. 21–30. Van der Woude (1963, 198– 258) gives a detailed account of the controversy around Vorstius; see also the older literature mentioned there (198, fn. 3). 4 The Sentence was officially published together with the corresponding Resolution by the States of Holland and West Friesland: Sententia: 1619. 5 Sententia, A2v: “non tantum de uno atque altero Religionis Reformatae Articulo, sed de plerisque eiusdem capitibus primariis.” 6 Sententia, A2v: “praeterquam quod rejectos in hac Synodo Remonstrantium de quinque Articulis errores propugnet, ac tueatur.” 7 Sententia, A3r: “de Trinitate personarum in Essentia divina, de Essentiae divinae Simplicitate, Infinitate, Immensitate, Omnipraesentia Essentiali, Omniscientia, Omnipotentia, Sapientia, et Immutabilitate; de Creatione, de Providentia Dei, de unione hypostatica duarum in Christo naturarum, de plena et perfecta satisfactione Christi pro peccatis nostris, de Iustificatione hominis coram Deo per fidem.” 8 Sententia, A3v: “sub inquirendi specie sedulo agere negotium seducendi. Frustra etiam conatum eum fuisse haec omnia variis distinctionibus ineptis, et dissimulationibus fraudulentis tegere, atque incrustare.”

324

Dolf te Velde

Sentences judges Vorstius to be guilty of sympathizing with Faustus Socinus and of promoting his blasphemous teachings.9 As preparatory material for the Synod’s dealings with Vorstius, the Dutch professors of theology had drafted a List of Errors taken from Vorstius’s writings. The list, which comprises ten pages in the copy consulted for this paper,10 is divided into ten headings and is followed by an Appendix. Of these ten clusters, the first eight pertain to the doctrine of God, and the final two to Christology. The entire list is composed of direct quotations from the writings of Vorstius, mostly from his Tractatus de Deo, but also from the Apologetica Exegesis and from the dispute with Johannes Piscator. The following elements of the doctrine of God are enumerated in the first eight headings: • The substance of God (de substantia Dei). • Divine simplicity (de simplicitate Dei). • God’s immensity and infinitude (de immensitate et infinitate). • The quantity and greatness of God (de quantitate Dei et magnitudine). • God’s place and local presence (de loco et locali praesentia). • Knowledge and foreknowledge of God (de cognitione et notitia, scientia et praescientia Dei). • God’s will (de voluntate Dei). • God’s power (de potentia). This List of Errors shows some remarkable features. First, the bulk of quotations comes from the annotations that Vorstius had added to the second edition of his Tractatus de Deo in order to clarify his earlier statements in the original disputations. Apparently, it was this further clarification of his positions that led to even more evident deviations from the orthodox account of the doctrine of God. Second, most of the statements quoted from Vorstius’s writings are formulated in a negative or strongly qualified sense. For example, under the heading of ‘divine simplicity’, Vorstius says: Nothing prohibits to distinguish something like matter and form in God, that is to say: to attribute to God the spiritual essence as the genus and therefore as quasi-material, and the essential properties as the essence or quasi-form.11

9 Sententia, A3r: “infausti illius Socini blasphemiis aut plane consona, aut admodum affinia.” A3v: “adeo ut manifeste appareat ipsum callide viam sternere voluisse ad impias Socini aliorumque haereses clanculum instillandas.” 10 Archive of the Remonstrant Church of Rotterdam, inventory number 58 (Rogge/Tiele: 1869). In this collection of documents, which is not consistently numbered, the list of “Errores Conradi Vorstii scriptis eius excerpti” is found near the end of the volume. 11 Vorstius: 1610, 210: “Nihil vetat quasi materiam et quasi formam in Deo distinguere, hoc est

Collateral Damage? The Condemnation of Conrad Vorstius by the Synod of Dordt

325

Or, when speaking about the knowledge of God: Still, nothing prohibits that generally speaking there is in God such discursive order by which he wills that one thing is or happens after another, and – the other way around – one thing because of the other. To put it more strongly, sound reason requires that true progress has a place in God in view of all things that are or happen outside himself, even that some sort of dianoia is found in him, but a divine one, most free from all defects, although we cannot perceive its specific ground and mode.12

Also, Vorstius sometimes phrases his own argument by referring to an opinion of others which (in his judgment) is inaccurate: It seems that those speak without sufficient accuracy, who teach simply and without restriction that whenever God has willed or wills or is to will something, then he has willed and wills it from all eternity by one and constant act forever.13

Third, an important motive for the corrections upon the traditional understanding lies in Vorstius’s appeal to a literal interpretation of certain passages from Scripture. Most clearly this is the case in his denial of the immensity and infinitude of God and, conversely, when he advocates the local presence of God. Vorstius argues in this way: The substance of God is seen by the Angels now (Matt 18:10) and will be seen face-toface by us in the future (1 John 3:2 and Rev 22:4). Therefore it is not outright and simply infinite. For that which is such, can in no sense be apprehended.14

Also in other phrases, Vorstius insists on a literal meaning of terms like ‘magnitude’ and ‘place’ as applied to God. Fourth, between the lines of the mainly negative and restrictive formulations, we can perceive an implicit division between the divine essence on the one hand, and the external operations of God on the other hand. Vorstius makes this distinction, for example, when dealing with the mode of God’s omnipresence:

essentiam spiritualem instar generis et proinde quasi materiae; proprietates autem essentiales instar essentiae seu quasi forma Deo attribui.” 12 Vorstius: 1610, 311: “Nihil tamen vetat in Deo generatim loquendo aliquem talem esse discursum quo unum post aliud et rursus unum propter aliud aut esse aut fieri velit. Imo sana ratio exigit quin vera progressus in Deo locum habet respectu eorum omnium quae sunt aut fiunt extra ipsum, etiam dianoian quoddam sed divinam, et ab omni defectu liberrimam locum in ipso inveniat, licet nos specialem eius rationem ac modum percipere non possumus.” 13 Vorstius: 1610, 307: “Non satis accurate loqui videntur, qui simpliciter et sine limitatione docent, Deum quicquid unquam voluit, aut vult aut volet, id ab omni aeternitate uno constantique actu in perpetuum voluisse et velle.” 14 Vorstius: 1610, 237: “Substantia Dei videtur iam ab Angelis, Matth. 18,10 et videbitur olim facie ad faciem a nobis, 1 Joh. 3,2 et Apoc. 22,4. Ergo non est prorsus et simpliciter infinita. Nam quod tale est nullo sensu apprehendi potest.”

326

Dolf te Velde

Therefore, we simply believe that holy Scripture often makes it clear that God truly by his own substance (which is with respect to us most extensive and great and immeasurable, and in that way most glorious) lives in the highest heaven and even contains it; that on the other hand, however, He is present to us on earth everywhere by his power and wisdom, or by his effective operation.15

An important consequence of this distinction between essence and operation is that in his faculties of knowing and willing, which are directed toward external objects, God is subject to discursive progress and probability on account of the free acts of creatures. Vorstius suggests that God can know his own decrees for certain, but: Of all other things that occur or happen, taken separately and viewed by themselves, we cannot affirm this, now that these things do not exist successively in time unless in a contingent and conditional way.16

The second part of the List of Errors addresses Vorstius’s views on Christology: the Person of the Son of God, and the ‘hypostatical union’ of the divine and human natures in Christ. Here it becomes clear that Vorstius understood the divinity of Christ not in an essential sense on account of the incarnation, but as an accidental and contingent participation of the human person of Christ in the divine qualities on account of the exaltation after Christ had accomplished his mediatorial work. Or, to put it more exactly, the divinity of Christ is understood as a specification of the universal presence of God in his creatures, which is described by Vorstius as a series of ascending degrees, on top of which we find the man Jesus Christ. Under the heading ‘The Son of God’, the List of Errors refers to a lengthy statement by Vorstius: In the seventh, highest and ultimate degree, it [= God’s presence] is to be constituted in that human being Jesus Christ, by his highest exaltation and simply singular apotheosis [in which, namely, all benefits and divine gifts that were mentioned before come together in the highest degree; so that it seems that no more or better gifts can be bestowed to any creature than were assigned to the man Christ.] (…) For that reason, in view of the communication of divinity (that follows, so to speak, from that closest union with the divine nature in the person of the Son of God), that human being Jesus Christ is rightly called even God and Lord and our Savior, and is given by us the divine worship of adoration and invocation, after God the Father, which he should necessarily be given.17 15 Vorstius: 1610, 237: “Simpliciter igitur credamus quod S. literae toties inculcant, Deum revera sua substantia (quae ut amplissima et maxima nostri respectu immensa ita simul gloriosa est) in coelo altissimo eodemque capacissimo habitare: in terra vero ubique virtute et sapientia sua sive efficaci operatione nobis adesse 16 Vorstius: 1610, 271: “sed de aliis omnibus quaecunque sunt et fiunt, seorsim ac per se consideratis, hoc affirmari non potest, quippe quae non successive in tempore verum etiam contingenter et suapse conditionaliter existit.” 17 Vorstius: 1610, 268: “Septimus autem, isque summus et postremus gradus in homine illo Jesu

Collateral Damage? The Condemnation of Conrad Vorstius by the Synod of Dordt

327

The attentive reader will notice several remarkable features in this statement: first, Vorstius does consistently speak of the ‘human being Jesus Christ’ (homo Jesus Christus); second, he suggests that this human being’s sharing in the divine qualities is a matter of being gifted; but, third, he also speaks about the union with the divine nature in the Son of God. Is there, after all, an orthodox Christological foundation for Vorstius’s views? In two further quotations, Vorstius’s understanding of the hypostatical union is displayed. The first statement is an inference deduced by ‘someone’ (aliquis) from a passage in Girolamo Zanchi’s De natura Dei: For that reason, some person has rightly concluded that even the divine hypostasis of the Word could have been shared with the assumed human nature through some hidden influence, in such a way that the human nature was continuously supported by the intimate power of the divine hypostasis; although it might be that no local conjunction between both substances obtains.18

In an indirect way, Vorstius here proposes to understand the union of the divine and the human natures of Christ in terms of ‘influence’ or ‘flowing-in’, and he denies – though in hypothetical terms – the substantial or essential ‘conjunction’ of both natures into one person. In the second quotation, Vorstius attempts to place his understanding of the union of the divine nature with the human person of Christ in line with Church fathers and scholastic theologians: So, whether we turn our attention to this hidden influence or flowing-in of the personality of the Word, or to some other particular operation of the Deity, by which the human nature of Christ subsists in the hypostasis of the Word (i. e., it is intimately attracted – so to speak – to the hypostasis of the Word and is continuously contained and supported by it), or to some other extraordinary arrangement of God, by which God once has dwelt in the human being Christ, and so has been present among humans, or to some secret that could until now not be explained satisfactorily; in each case the eternal divinity of Christ could be amply demonstrated, even if this received opinion (on the

Christo, eiusque summa exaltatione et apotheo¯sei plane singulari, constituendus est; [quippe in qua omnia illa jam dicta beneficia, seu dona divina, simul concurrunt, et quidem omnia in summo gradu: ita ut neque plura neque maiora dona creaturae ulli conferri posse videantur, quam Christo homini collata sunt.] (…) Adeo ut respectu huius communicatae divinitatis (ex arctissima illa unione cum Natura divina in persona filii Dei quasi profluentis) homo iste Jesus Christus merito etiam Deus et Dominus et Servator noster appelletur, et divino cultu adorationis atque invocationis, post Deum patrem (…) a nobis omnibus afficiatur, adeoque necessario afficiendus sit.” The parenthetical sentence in square brackets was omitted in the List of Errors, but serves the present-day reader to better understand the implications of Vorstius’s statement. 18 Vorstius: 1611, 88: “Unde non immerito aliquis collegerit, etiam divinam tou logou hypostasin per arcanum aliquem influxum assumtae humanitati communicari potuisse, et hanc perpetuo per illius intimam virtutem adhuc sustentari; etiamsi forte localis aliqua inter utramque substantiam conjunctio non intercedat.”

328

Dolf te Velde

omnipresence and immensity of God’s essence) would remain in question to some extent.19

Various explanations for the way the divine hypostasis of the Word is united or conjoined with the human person of Jesus Christ are placed next to each other. The suggestion that results from this presentation is that the exact way of understanding the conjunction between divine and human nature cannot be determined, and is of no importance for maintaining “the eternal divinity of Christ.” Arguing the other way around, however, we could state that in the options presented by Vorstius the ‘hypostatical union’ is described in a nonessential way: it originates in some “arrangement” by God, by which God chose to be present in this one particular human person. After all, Vorstius distances himself by way of hypothesis from the classical doctrine of the two natures of Christ.

Judgments by the Various Delegations In the judgments that were prepared by the individual delegations or collegia of the Synod, the same issues are dealt with as were addressed in the Sentence. In several cases they give more detailed information about the alleged danger of Vorstius’s teachings. As was noticed in the Synod Acts themselves, the delegations did not completely agree on the exact grounds on which Vorstius should be condemned (ADSND, vol. 1, 151). When we scan the manuscripts that have been stored in the Synodal Archive, we see that the written judgments differ in length and in tone. The British delegation, for example, gives a brief but strong statement against the “monstrous audacity and impiety” (quam portentosa audacia ac impietate) shown by Vorstius in subverting the orthodox doctrine of God. Added to their sentence is a list of some twenty particular opinions found in Vorstius’s Tractatus de Deo, indicated by the British delegates by exact page numbers. About half of the quotations are also found in the List of Errors drafted by the Dutch professors of theology in advance; the other statements by Vorstius 19 Vorstius: 1611, 89: “Sive igitur ad illum arcanum personalitatis tou logou influxum, aut illapsum, sive ad aliam aliquam singularem Deitatis operationem, per quam humana Christi natura in hypostasi tou logou subsistat, h. e. ad hypostasin tou logou quasi intime attracta sit, et perpetuo in ea conservetur ac sustentetur; sive ad extraordinariam quaedam Dei dispensationem, qua Deus olim singulariter in Christo homine habitaverit, atque ita inter homines versatus sit (…) sive ad aliud quidvis nondum satis explicabile arcanum (…) animo respiciamus: semper aeterna Christi divinitas abunde probari poterit, etiamsi recepta illa thesis (de omnipraesentia et immensitate essentiae Dei) in dubio aliquatenus relinquatur.” The original quotation, from which the List of Errors omits some parenthetical remarks, contains explicit reference to Tertullian (160–220) and the scholastic author Gregory of Valencia (1550–1603).

Collateral Damage? The Condemnation of Conrad Vorstius by the Synod of Dordt

329

appear to have been collected by the British delegates themselves. The fierce tone of the British contribution is maintained in their recommendation that not only the ‘pestilence’ spread by Vorstius should be eliminated by prohibiting the further publication of his works, but that also the supreme magistrate should issue an official burning of his books,20 just like the British King James had ordered in 1611 – a copy of the book burning edict stated by the Vice–Chancelor of Cambridge University is added to the report of the British delegation (OSA, C, 205r– 207v). Some of the other delegations joined the British in advocating these draconian measures.21 Also the reference to the strong rejection of Vorstius’s view by King James is found in about half of the judgments.22 This indicates that Vorstius had gained an international reputation, and that the doctrinal debate over his teachings had become the subject of political and diplomatic interest. The judgment by the theologians from the Palatinate consists mainly of a narrative about their earlier experiences with Vorstius. At first, Vorstius was applauded for his great skills in teaching theology. But then, in 1598, he wrote to Daniel Tossanus about the doctrine of satisfaction, and expressed his affinity to the thoughts of Faustus Socinus. In 1599, Vorstius had to explain himself for the faculty of theology in Heidelberg, and at that time also the theologians of Basel were involved in settling this case. Vorstius had promised to refrain from any statements that would cause doubt and suspicion, but in his teaching he soon returned to his ambiguous positions.23 Concerning the substantial doctrines proposed by Vorstius, the Palatine delegates concentrate on his views on Christology and the doctrine of atonement. Several other delegations refer more briefly to the proceedings of 1598 and 1599, in which the theologians of Heidelberg and Basel had censored their younger colleague. This makes it clear that the Synod saw a consistent line of heterodoxy and of Socinian leanings from the start of Vorstius’s career onward. The most reserved criticism of Vorstius is displayed in the statement of the Bremen delegation (OSA C, 217r-v), which is expressed in mainly negative terms: the teachings of Vorstius differ “not slightly” (haud leviter) from the Reformed confessions; therefore these teachings “should not be transmitted” (tradi non posse). Vorstius did not keep his earlier promise, made to the theological faculty of Heidelberg, to refrain from controversial and ambiguous statements. Although he asserts his loyalty to the Reformed confessions, and verbally agrees 20 21 22 23

“Flammis adjudicandos, ac palam solemniter infamis holocausti nomine comburendos.” Palatinate, Geneva. From the Palatinate, Emden, North Holland, South Holland, Zeeland, Friesland, Drenthe. The proceedings between Vorstius and the Heidelberg theologians were concluded by an official Act in which Vorstius renounced his ‘heterodox’ opinions, and which was signed by the Heidelberg professors. A copy of this Act is available at the Archive of the Remonstrant Church of Rotterdam, inventory number 354 (Rogge/Tiele: 1869).

330

Dolf te Velde

with them, he does in fact “speak in ways that differ” (variis loquendi modis) from the language of the confessions of the church. The Bremen delegates hold it against Vorstius that he did not sufficiently explain his opinions when asked to do so by the church. On the other hand, the Bremen delegates express their admiration for the great intellectual qualities of Vorstius, and they point to the fact that his writings against the Jesuits might have a lasting benefit for the Protestant cause. They also hope that there is a possibility to save Vorstius for the Reformed church and to bring him back into the unity of the church, so that both his personal wellbeing and the preservation of sound doctrine in the church can be upheld.24 They are uncertain, however, whether this will be actually possible.25 Besides the substantial discussions, some minor details in the judgments are noteworthy. Theodore Tronchin, for example, writing on behalf of the Genevan delegation, echoes a famous saying by John Calvin that “in the face of the majesty of God, we humans are poor worms of the earth.”26 And the delegates from Gelderland clearly hint at the opening question of the Heidelberg Catechism by complaining that the teachings of Vorstius rob the believers of their “sole comfort in life and death”.27 One contribution that deserves particular attention is the statement by the delegates from Drenthe – by that time it was not an official Province, but had a lower status due to its very small population. What makes the judgment of Drenthe interesting is the fact that the two ministers Themo van Aschenberg of Meppel,28 and Patroclus Rommelingius of Ruinen29 were former students of Vorstius at Steinfurt.30 Let us hear how these pupils speak of their former teacher: Although Mr. Conrad Vorstius was the teacher of both of us – once in Steinfurt – no instructor is such a friend to us as is the truth. To this truth we have bound ourselves 24 “Et optamur, illum vel servari posse et in unitatem ecclesiae reduci, vel saltem ita in ordine contineri, ne offendicula, quae correcta et emendata oportet, augeantur et latius serpant.” 25 “An autem et ubi illud commode et tuto fieri queat, nobis, sicut sollicite cogitantibus, non satis liquet.” 26 OSA C, 215r: “Nam cum homo comparet coram aeterna, infinita, gloriosissima Dei Maiestate, se pulverem, cinorem & terrae vermiculum debet agnoscere.” 27 OSA C, 225r: “fidelibus de solamine in vita et morte eripiunt.” 28 Themmo van Aschenberg, date of birth unknown, minister in Diever 1608, Meppel 1617, died shortly before September 7, 1625 (Van Lieburg: 1996, vol. 1, 11). Also his son Johannes and his grandson Gerwinus served as ministers in the Reformed church. 29 Patroclus Rommelingius or Römelingh, born 1576 in Quakenbrück (Diepholz), minister in Dalfsen ca. 1600, Ruinen 1603, Farmsum 1621, died May 1, 1647 (Van Lieburg: 1996, vol. 1, 208). 30 On the students of the gymnasium Arnoldinum in Steinfurt, see Abels (1988) and Frijhoff (1991). Since the matriculation records of the academy have been lost, only a partial list of students could be reconstructed. For Patroclus Rommelingius, the registration as a student is well attested; for Themmo van Aschenberg, there is no written evidence apart from the document reviewed in the present paper.

Collateral Damage? The Condemnation of Conrad Vorstius by the Synod of Dordt

331

through an oath in this venerable Synod, and we will resolutely and as briefly as we can expound what we feel about Vorstius and his writings.31

They continue with an unambiguous rejection of Vorstius’s views: This doctrine not only is impure, but so largely diffused, that there is hardly any point of the Christian religion that is not completely or partly contradicted by it. But when he [Vorstius] takes exception by saying that he did not write these things from his own mind, but in the pose of making an inquiry, this is as probable to us as when he had said that light is darkness, and darkness is light. But let it be so that he said it in the pose of an inquiry, that will not help a lot: he who inquires, doubts; he who searches a new doctrine, does no longer acquiesce in the old one; he who does not acquiesce, is either an heretic or very close to being an heretic. This is our sentence on Vorstius’s writings.32

Apart from the outright dismissal of the theological method and insights of Vorstius, the two pastors from Drenthe also express their opinion about the person of their former teacher: Second, with regard to Vorstius himself, we are of the opinion that he is still now as he once was when publishing his writings, namely defiled by so many errors that appeared in his writings. These are our proofs: 1. Because thus far in no public writing, singing his song, he has taken pains to call back the poor reader from those heretical writings, in the same way as he who presented his fellows with poisoned drinks, as long as he not actually ruined them, and recalls his fellows from drinking, so long he should be considered to deserve no punishment and did no wrong; but he did have the same in mind, as he had when he first presented them those drinks; exactly the same we think should be judged of Vorstius. 2. Because even in his letter (which was read yesterday),33 he did not admit a fault, recall, or ask for forgiveness. 3. Because in this letter he asks the room for himself to refute Socinus. And why, we ask? Because he sees that if he refutes Socinus, he can no longer be counted as a Socinian. But if he sees that now, he could have seen it for many years; and up to the present day he has never entered into a refutation of Socinus. Therefore, he now betrays himself by his own judgment. Because if someone had the opportunity to free himself of this suspicion, but did not use the opportunity, then he puts himself under increased suspicion.34

31 OSA C, 240r-v: “Etsi D. Conradus Vorstius, olim Steinfurti, utriusque nostrum praeceptor fuit, nullus tamen praeceptor nobis tam amicus est, quam veritas: cui veritati cum in hac ven. Synodo, nos iuramento obstrinxerimus, intripide, id quod de Vorstianis scriptis, et de ipso Vorstio iam pridem sentimus, quam brevissimie fieri poterit, exponemus.” 32 “Ista doctrina non modo est impura, sed etiam tam late diffusa, ut vix unum religionis christianae caput sit, cui vel in totum, vel aliquam ex partem non contradicat. Quod si excipiat, se non ex sua mente, sed in persona disquirentis ea scripsisse, aeque verisimile hoc nobis sit, ac si diceret, lucem esse tenebras, et tenebras esse lucem. Sed esto, dixerit in persona disquirentis, non multum juvabitur: qui disquirit, dubitat; qui quaerit doctrinam novam, ille in veteri non amplius acquiescit; qui non acquiescit, ille aut haereticus est, aut ab haeretico quam proxime abest. Haec est nostra de scriptis Vorstianis sententia.” 33 This is the letter that was mentioned before, and which is stored in OSA C,96r–98r. 34 “De secundo: Ad Vorstium ipsum quod attinet, talem cum ADHUC existimamus esse, qualis

332

Dolf te Velde

The fundamental flaw which they see in the public behaviour of Vorstius, is that he is unreliable: But if someone insists: At least now he is willing to refute Socinus, then we answer: If he had added that together with Socinus he willed to refute and destroy his own book “On God”, we would believe him to say honestly and in good faith that he would refute Socinus. But this he doesn’t add, and therefore we cannot see it this way that Mr. Conrad Vorstius should now have a different mind than when he disseminated those impure and blasphemous and hurtful writings. We conclude, thus, with the venerable Mr. Pareus: Let Vorstius turn himself in whatever figures, and make black from white every day, he would not impress me, who knows him all too well; and I hope he will not impress us, nor the Church. I pray the Lord that, if he can be cured from his evil, God gives him a right mind and a right tongue to round off.35

The judgment by the Drenthe delegates echoes many of the concerns which can also be found in the contributions by other delegations. Despite their personal affinity with Vorstius as their former professor, the two ministers from Meppel and Ruinen make a clear statement concerning the danger of his teachings.

fuit olim, cum ista scripta in lucem ederet: tot videlicet erroribus adhuc delibutum, quod errores in scriptis occurrunt. Probationes hae sunt: 1. Quia hactenus nullo scripto publico, palmodiam canens, ab haereticis istis scriptis, miserum lectorem revocare allaboravit, quemadmodum igitur is, qui convivis suis, venenatos cibos apposuit, quamdiu istos nondum evertis, et convivos vescentes revocat, tamdiu putandus est, nulla adhuc poenitudine duci, neque factum mitare; sed habere adhuc eandem mentem quam habuit, cum cibos primum apponeret; idem plane de Vorstio judicandum censemus. 2. Quia ne in hac quidem heri praelecta epistola, vel minimum errorem agnoscit, revocat, veniamque precatur. 3. Quia in hac epistola petit, sibi provinciam, Socinum refutandi, demandari; cur quaeso; quia videt, si Socinum refutet, non posse se amplius numerari Socinianum. Si iam hoc videt, etiam ante multos annos idem videre potuit; atque ad hunc usque diem, Socini refutationem nondum est aggressus. Ergo se, suo ipsius iudicio, tanquam Sorex, prodit. Nam cui fuit occasio e suspicione emergendi, neque tamen ea occasione voluit uti, cum potuisset, ille in immensum suspicionem augebit.” 35 “Quod si contra quis instet: illum saltem nunc paratum esse ad Socinum refutandum, ei respondemus: si addidisset, se simul cum Socino, etiam librum suum de Deo velle refutare et delere, crederemus, quod sincere et bona fide dixisset, se velle Socinum refutare. At hoc nullum addidit. Non possumus itaque videre, quod D. Conradus Vorstius, nunc alio sit animo, quam cum impura et blasphema illa vuldinoque committenda scripta, primum disseminaret. Concludimus ergo cum venerabili domino Paraeo: vertat sese vertumve ille Vorstius in omnes figuras, et album nigrum quotidie occinat; mihi, qui hominem nimis novi, non imponet; spero etiam quod non vobis, nec Ecclesiae. Dominum precor ex animo, ut, si est sanabilis, det ei mentem et linguam rectam rotundam.”

Collateral Damage? The Condemnation of Conrad Vorstius by the Synod of Dordt

333

Analysis On the basis of the material produced by the Synod in preparing its final Sentence against Vorstius, a more complete understanding can be gained of the reasons of this condemnation and the sense of urgency felt by the Synod. In this analysis, I will place the elements reviewed in the previous section into the larger story of Vorstius’s theological development. A number of factors come into play. First, the fact that Vorstius had been compromised by allegations of Socinianizing thoughts throughout his career. As early as 1598, leading theologians from Heidelberg and Basel had been alerted, and this episode was never forgotten during the years to come. Second, the unrest caused by Vorstius’s disputations On the Nature and Attributes of God (1610) grew to international proportions by the furious response by the British King James I. Through his ambassador Robert Winwood, the king expressed his worries to the States of Holland, and put them under pressure to take action against the controversial theologian. Third, in a broader sense the appointment of Vorstius to the Leiden chair of theology – as Jacob Arminius’s successor – elicited great commotion within the Reformed churches in the Netherlands. Leading theologians such as Petrus Plancius (Amsterdam), Johannes Bogerman (Leeuwarden), and Sibrandus Lubbertus (Franeker), questioned the orthodoxy of the newly appointed professor and urged for the cancellation of his professorate. From the other side, Vorstius received strong support from the Remonstrant leader Johannes Wtenbogaert and the powerful pensionary of the States of Holland, Johan van Oldenbarnevelt. The association between Vorstius and the Remonstrants appeared stronger since several of the Dutch Reformed ministers that had originally studied under Vorstius at Steinfurt supported the Remonstrant cause. So, in several ways Vorstius became – perhaps unwillingly – part of the controversy that dominated the Dutch churches for almost ten years. The heart of the matter lies, of course, in the heterodox teachings attributed to Vorstius. They relate to key doctrines of the Christian faith: the nature and attributes of God, as a fundamental doctrine that regulates the basic relationship between God and the created world; the doctrine of the Trinity as immediately connected to the question whether Jesus Christ is the true Son of God; following from that, the character of Christ’s satisfaction and of our own justification. An important difference between Vorstius and the mainstream of Reformed theology of his day can be noticed in methodological questions. The exegetical approach advocated by Vorstius displays a form of literalism that tends to destroy the way in which classic orthodox Christianity had understood the divine self-revelation in Scripture. When Scripture uses anthropomorphic language, attributing bodily terms and functions to God, and depicting God as engaging in

334

Dolf te Velde

concrete communication with his people, theology has always sought to combine these elements with other biblical insights into the spiritual nature of God and his omniscience and omnipotence.36 What Vorstius achieves instead is a forced, literal reading of certain biblical passages in a way that undermines the larger picture. Concerning the specific ‘errors’ in Vorstius’s doctrine of God, the quotations that were collected in the List of Errors and judgments by several delegations provide ample evidence that Vorstius denied God’s simplicity, omnipresence, and immutability. He stated that God does not know for certain what will happen, but often has to guess and hope or fear about the future. Consequently, not all things happen as God wills them to happen. Considering the overall structure of his teachings about God’s attributes, it is evident that Vorstius sees a distinction between God’s essence as He is in himself, and God’s outward operations in his power, wisdom, and will. In the former aspect, God is eternal and necessary; in the latter sense as he relates to the world created by him, God acts not in a natural and necessary way, but freely and mutably. The presence and operations of God towards the world are not only determined by God’s own perfections – as in traditional doctrine – but by God’s free will. In the final analysis, they depend on the contribution of creatures, which goes beyond God’s control. Although Vorstius does not explicitly ascribe a temporal mode to God’s outward acts, his discussion of the divine ‘affections’ in response to good and evil reveals that he understood these in a non-essentialist way as true reactions of God to the acts of human beings (and other creatures). Now the problem with Vorstius’s book on God is that he seems to agree with the main line of traditional doctrine, and then only proposes a few modifications, mainly on exegetical grounds. When taken together, however, the changes advocated by Vorstius result in an entirely different picture of God.37 Consistent with this pattern, Vorstius teaches that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ itself is not effectively satisfactory, but should be complemented by our obedience and faith. By making salvation conditional upon the human response to Christ, he offers fundamental support to the Remonstrant positions in the doctrine of grace and election. Consistent with his emphasis on the human factor is a doctrine of Christ in which his essential divinity is denied. Instead, Vorstius explains that Christ is ‘Son of God’ in virtue of a divine influx that fulfils the human person of Christ in a way that should be imitated by our obedience to the commands of Christ. 36 A survey of the discussions on anthropomorphisms in the Reformed orthodox doctrine of God is provided by Muller: 2003, 551–561. 37 This statement concurs with the analysis provided by Rohls (2014). For a more elaborate analysis of Vorstius’s doctrine of God, see also Te Velde: 2012.

Collateral Damage? The Condemnation of Conrad Vorstius by the Synod of Dordt

335

Conclusion Was the condemnation of Conrad Vorstius by the Synod of Dordt a case of collateral damage? This essay has sought to examine the procedure that led to the final removal of this controversial Reformed theologian from his teaching post at Leiden university – a post which he never actually held – and to an unambiguous anathema on his doctrinal positions. At first sight, Vorstius appears to have fallen victim to a number of accidental circumstances, such as the previous intervention by the British King James I, and the fact that the reputation of Vorstius as a Reformed theologian had been compromised from the beginning. Judging from a distance of four centuries, it is hard to understand why Vorstius – at that time living in Gouda without an official position – presented such a clear and imminent danger to the Reformed faith that immediate action by the Synod was required. At a closer look, however, the Synod had reason to worry about the farreaching consequences of what Vorstius had written and had never revoked. In Early Modern culture, written words were taken quite seriously. In the case of Vorstius, his teachings on God and Christ provided the fundamental framework in which the Remonstrant position on grace and free choice would make sense. His approach to Scripture promoted a literalist and rationalist hermeneutic that could be detrimental to the basic Christian doctrines as the Church had always understood them. In addition, the doubtful and ambiguous method of Vorstius’s disputations went beyond the scholastic practice of ‘faith seeking understanding’ as it was commonly understood, and resulted – at least according to the mainstream of Reformed theologians – in weakening the truth and certainty of the Christian faith itself. The analysis of documents in this paper has made visible a conscious and fundamental conflict of views in central doctrines of the Christian faith. Within the framework of the early seventeenth century, it was impossible to hold these contradictory approaches together as expressions of the biblical doctrine. Conrad Vorstius knew what he was doing when he questioned the traditional understanding of the nature and attributes of God, the Person of Christ, and the character of satisfaction. The Synod saw no other option than to reject and condemn the heterodox opinions of Vorstius, in order to safeguard what it saw as the true and sound teaching of the church. For that reason, I conclude that the damage was not collateral. It was intentional, on both sides.

336

Dolf te Velde

Bibliography Primary Sources Hartsoeker, Christian/Philip à Limborch (ed.) (1684), Praestantium ac Eruditorum Virorum Epistolae Ecclesiasticae et Theologicae, 2nd ed., Amsterdam: Henry Wetstein. Rogge, H.C./Tiele, P.A. (1869), Catalogus van handschriften op de bibliotheek der Remonstrantsch-Gereformeerde Gemeente te Rotterdam, Amsterdam: IJ. Rogge. Sententia (1619), Sententia Synodi Nationalis Dordrechtanae de Doctrina Conradi Vorstii, S. Theol. Doct., Simul-que Decretum Illustrium et Potentum Dominorum Ordinum Hollandiae et West-Frisia quod est illam subsecutum, The Hague: Hillebrand Jacob. Vorstius, Conradus (1610), Tractatus theologicus de Deo, sive de natura et attributis Dei, omnia fere ad hanc materiam pertinentia… decem disputationibus… comprehendens: Accesserunt… Annotationes… quae in thesibus… explicata esse videbantur, Steinfurt: Theophilus Caesar. [VD17 3614:715822U] Vorstius, Conradus (1611), Apologetica exegesis sive plenior declaratio locorum aliquot, quae ex libro eiusdem de Deo, sive de Natura et Attributis Dei excerpta: eique pro erroneis imposita, hoc titulo late in vulgus emanaverunt: ab eodem ipso auctore scripta, et lucem edita, Leiden: Johannes Patius. [USTC 1028774]

Secondary Literature Abels, Paul (1988), Das Arnoldinum und die Niederlande während seiner ersten Blütezeit: Das Verhältnis einer Hassliebe, in: 400 Jahre Arnoldinum 1588–1988, Greven: Eggenkamp, 78–97. Frijhoff, Willem (1991), Die Bedeutung des Hohen Schule zu Steinfurt im Universitätsraum der östlichen Niederlande im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert, in: Symposion 400 Jahre Hohe Schule Steinfurt, Steinfurt: Stadt Steinfurt, 18–35. Lieburg, F.A. van (1996), Repertorium van Nederlandse hervormde predikanten tot 1816, 2 vol., Dordrecht: Van Lieburg. Mellby, Carl August (1901), Conrad Vorstius: Ein Vorkämpfer religiöser Duldung am Anfang des 17. Jahrhunderts, Leipzig: Schmidt. Muller, Richard A. (2003), Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 3: The Divine Essence and Attributes, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Röser, Albert (1988), Conrad Vorstius und die Theologie, in: Porträts aus vier Jahrhunderten Arnoldinum Steinfurt 1588–1988, Steinfurt: Stadt Steinfurt, 35–76. Rohls, Jan (2005), Calvinism, Arminianism and Socinianism in the Netherlands until the Synod of Dordt, in: Martin Mulsow/Jan Rohls (ed.), Socinianism and Arminianism: Antitrinitarians, Calvinists and Cultural Exchange in Seventeenth-Century Europe, Leiden: Brill, 3–48. Rohls, Jan (2014), Der Fall Vorstius, in: Friedrich Vollhardt (ed.), Religiöser Nonkonformismus und frühneuzeitliche Gelehrtenkultur, Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

Collateral Damage? The Condemnation of Conrad Vorstius by the Synod of Dordt

337

Schweizer, Alexander (1856/57), Conradus Vorstius, Vermittlung der reformirten Centraldogmen mit den Socinianischen Einwendungen, in: Tübinger Theologische Jahrbücher 15, 435–486; 16, 153–184. Velde, Dolf te (2012), Eloquent Silence: The Doctrine of God in the Synopsis of Purer Theology, CHRC 92.2, 581–608. Woude, C. van der (1963), Sibrandus Lubbertus: Leven en werken, in het bijzonder naar zijn correspondentie, Kampen: Kok.

Image Credits

Abb. 1, page 84 Heinrich Aldegrever, Bildnis Martin Luther, 1540 Kupferstich 17,3 × 13 cm Melanchthonhaus Bretten Foto: Melanchthonhaus Bretten Abb. 2, page 88 Heinrich Aldegrever Bildnis Johann Bockelson van Leiden, 1536 Kupferstich 31,6 × 22,6 cm Germanisches Nationalmuseum, Nürnberg. Foto: M. Runge Abb. 3, page 93 Christoffel van Sichem d. Ä. Bildnis Thomas Müntzer, 1608 Kupferstich Aus: Historische beschryvinge ende affbeeldingeder voor neemste hooftketteren, Amsterdam 1608 17,3 × 12,7 cm Melanchthonhaus Bretten Foto: Melanchthonhaus Bretten Abb. 4, page 95 Anonym Bildnis Andreas Bodenstein, gen. Karlstadt, Mitte 17. Jahrhundert Kupferstich 17,6 × 14,5 cm Melanchthonhaus Bretten Foto: Melanchthonhaus Bretten

Index of Names

Acquaviva, Claudio 22 Acronius, Johannes 307, 309–311, 313– 315, 317 Albert of Mainz, Archbishop 197 Albrecht, Duke of Württemberg 115, 271, 281 Aldegrever, Heinrich 82–85, 87–91, 339 Alexander VII, Pope 36 Alvarez, Didace 25 Amsdorf, Nikolaus von 131, 133, 139, 141f, 146, 197f Aquinas, Thomas 27, 32, 39, 168 Aristotle 201–204 Arminius, Jacob 322, 333 Arnauld, Antoine 35–37, 39 Arnauld, Mère Angélique 35 Arrende, Juan de 23 Aschenberg, Themo van 330 Augustine 17, 20–22, 25, 29–32, 51f, 55, 104, 156, 199, 202 Aurifaber, Johannes 132, 135 Azor, Jean 22 Baius (de Bay), Michael 16–21, 23, 31, 35, 38 Baldung, Hans 83 Bañez, Domingo 16, 23, 25–27, 29, 31, 38f Barth, Karl 12, 210, 241 ¯ mura Sumitada 222 Bartolomeu, O Báthory, István 65, 67 Bellarmine, Robert Cardinal 20, 22, 28–31, 38f, 172, 322 Berchorst, Casper ter 308 Berentsz, Thomas 311, 315

Bernhardi, Bartholomäus 198, 206 Bethlen, Gábor 65f, 69, 71 Beza, Theodore 245, 260, 262–265, 304 Biel, Gabriel 200f, 204 Bocskai, István 61, 67, 346 Bodenstein, Andreas (Karlstadt) 81f, 82, 86, 94–99, 199, 339 Bogardus, Johannes 19 Bogerman, Johannes 292–298, 300–304, 333 Bourbon, Antoine de, King of Navarre 261, 263 Brenz/Brentius, Johannes 133, 136, 156, 157, 182 Budny, Szymon 275, 278 Bullinger, Heinrich 86, 151–162, 182, 245 Camerarius, Joachim 135 Cerqueira, Luis, 227 Chrysostom 165–173 Clement IX, Pope 36 Clement VIII, Pope 31, 39 Codde, Petrus 38 Coligny, Gaspard de 259–261, 264 Collado, Diego 229 Colloredo, Hieronymus 121 Comenius, John Amos 61, 63, 69, 71 Couros, Mattheus de 229 Cramer, Johann Andreas 115 Cranach d. Ä., Lucas 82, 83, 96, 97 Cranach d. J., Lucas 85, 198 Cruciger, Caspar 132, 138 Czechowic, Marcin 271, 275f

342

Index of Names

d’Ailly, Pierre 200 d’Albon, Jacques 262 Dávid, Ferenc 64, 65 Dávid, János 184–188, 190, 191, 209 Dentière, Marie 216 Diodati, Jean 308 Duns Scotus, John 24, 200 Duvergier de Hauranne, Jean 32, 35 Eck, Johannes 87, 104 Elizabeth I, Queen of England 67, 259 Episcopius, Simon 287, 290, 292–294, 296f, 301–303, 311 Erasmus of Rotterdam 270 Eyb, Albrecht von 47 Ferreira, Bartolomeo 23 Feustking, Johann Heinrich 198f Flacius Illyricus, Matthias 137 Fock, Johann Georg 113–115 Frederici, Isaac 287, 307 Gallus, Nikolaus 139 Gellert, C.F. 115, 119 Gomez, Pedro 228 González de Albeda, Juan 39 Goswinius, Thomas 307, 311–315 Granvelle, Antoine Perrenot de 19 Gregory XIII, Pope 20, 38 Guise, François de 261f Günther, Franz 199 Gyarmathi, Miklós 186 Hardenberg, Lubbert van 310, 314 Henry II, King of France 259, 261 Henry VIII, King of England 257, 260 Hermann, Thomas 89, 233 Hessels, John 17, 19, 38 Hessels van Est, William (Estius) 21, 32, 34, 39 Hohenzollern, Albrecht 269–271, 273, 280 Hommius, Festus 317 Innocent X, Pope

35f

James I, King of England

322, 333, 335

Jansenius, Cornelius 32–37, 39 Jonas, Justus 132f, 135f, 138 Joseph II 113, 121 Jsenmann, Johann 136 Knipperdolling, Bernd

87

Landis, Hans 230f Lasco, Johannes a 61, 71 Leiden, Jan van 81f, 87–91, 99, 339 Lémos, Thomas de 25 Lensaeus (de Lens), Johannes 20 Leo XI, Pope 31 Léon, Luis de 23, 31 Lessius, Leonard 16f, 21–23, 25, 28f, 31, 38 l’Hôpital, Michel de 261–266 Louis XIV, King of France 37 Lubbertus, Sibrandus 314, 322, 333 Maccovius, Johannes 290, 321 Major, Georg 196 Matthisius, Assuerus 307, 310–312, 314 Melanchthon, Philipp 11, 63, 82, 131–136, 138f, 145, 182–184, 196, 272 Melius, Péter 185 Moded, Hermannus 91f Molina, Luis de 16, 23–29, 31, 39 Monoszlói, András 178, 185–191 Montemayor, Prudencio de 23, 27, 31 Montmorency, Anne de 261f Morillon, Maximilian 19 Müntzer, Thomas 81f, 86, 91–94, 96, 98, 339 Murzynowski, Stanisław 270–282 Naeranus, Samuel 287, 307 Nicolai, Philipp 118, 185 Noailles, Louis Antoine de 37 Oecolampad, Johannes 243, 245 ¯ hashi, Yukihiro 231 O Olahus, Nicolaus 179 Oldebarnevelt, Johan van 322 Orange, Maurits of, Prince 289 Pascal, Blaise

36f, 39

343

Index of Names

Pázmány, Péter 186 Pencz, Georg 82 Pfeffinger, Johannes 131, 139–142 Philipp I, Landgrave of Hesse 87 Philip II, King of Spain 19, 221 Pieters, Geert 310 Pijnacker, Philippus 297 Piscator, Johannes 304, 322, 324 Pius V, Pope 19, 38 Plancius, Petrus 333 Quiroga y Vela, Gaspar de

23

Regis, Petrus 18 Rommelingius, Patroclus 330 Rörer, Georg 132, 136, 196 Sablonius (Sablon), Antonius 18 Sandecki-Malecki, Jan 270f, 273, 278–282 Saxony, Maurice of 136, 138f, 141 Scheurl, Christoph 199 Schiffbaumer, Matthias 63 Schotlerus, Johannes 307, 310–312, 314f, 317 Seklucjan, Jan 270f, 273, 279–282 Sichem, Christoffel van 91–94, 96, 98, 339 Socinus, Faustus 322, 324, 329, 331f Souterius, Daniel 313 Spalatin, George 133 Spengler, Lazarus 135–137, 139f, 143 Steenoven, Cornelis 38 Stephani, Wilhelmus 313f, 317f Szegedi, István Kis 59, 63, 66, 69, 346

Tapper, Ruard 19, 21, 28 Telegdi, Miklós 178–187, 189 Tertullian 158, 328 Theresia, Maria 121 Thököly, Imre 65 Throckmorton, Francis 259 Tossanus, Daniel 329 Turretini, Benedict 309 Ursinus, Zacharias

172

Valignano, Alessandro 232 Vene, Gerrit 310 Vogellius, Hieronymus 311f, 315f Vorstius, Conrad 287, 290, 321–335 Voscuijl, Everhardus 307, 310–316 Waldeck, Franz von 87, 99 Westphal, Joachim 45, 132–134, 139, 346 Winwood, Robert 333 Wladyslaw IV, King of Poland 68 Wtenbogaert, Johannes 322, 333 Wucherer, Georg Philipp 114f, 118f, 121f, 124–126 Wujek, Jakub 275f Zangrius, Petrus ‘Tiletanus’ 18 Zegers, Jacob 32 Zsigmond, János, Prince 65, 67 Zumel, Francisco 27 Zwingli, Huldrych 12, 85, 151–153, 188, 221, 241, 245f

Index of Subjects

Act of Supremacy 257 Anabaptism 64, 221, 233 Antitrinitarianism 64, 65, 67, 68, 71 Baptism 15, 104f, 109f, 170, 221, 226f, 235, 243 Belgic Confession 290f, 295f Book printing 71, 114, 124, 134, 138, 162, 222, 270, 277 Calvinism (Calvinist, Calvinists, Calvinistic) 17, 35, 40, 59–77, 92, 179, 181, 182, 185, 186, 187, 191, 246, 248, 257–268, 275, 280 Christendom 103–111, 266 Christology 151–153, 324, 326, 329 Church 12, 15f, 19f, 27–29, 32, 37–40, 46– 52, 55, 60–72, 103–107, 109–111, 113f, 116–121, 123, 125f, 133, 141, 151–155, 158–162, 165, 169, 177–180, 183–185, 187–189, 191, 195–199, 202, 205, 209f, 217, 224–230, 235, 241–247, 249–253, 257–266, 269, 271f, 275f, 278–281, 289– 292, 294–297, 304, 307–310, 312–318, 321–324, 329f, 332f, 335, 345 Church and state 46, 50, 103, 104, 109, 110, 151, 209–210, 217, 245, 257, 259, 260, 262, 263, 265, 266 Church discipline 55, 227, 245–247, 249, 251–253 Church Fathers 17, 29, 32, 108, 190, 327 Church of England 257, 260 Confessionalization 178f, 181, 222–226

Consistory 120, 123, 210f, 216f, 251 Contra-Remonstrantism 288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 295, 298, 299, 303, 307, 308, 310, 311, 313, 314, 315, 317 Council of Trent 15–18, 38f, 172, 178, 266 Covenant 50f Devotio Moderna 226, 235 Diet of Augsburg 133, 136, 139, 141 Dutch Republic 35, 38 Eastern Orthodoxy 64, 70f Enlightenment 113, 115, 123, 126 Ethics 34, 37, 46, 47, 52, 53, 55, 56, 110, 117, 202, 203, 205, 209–220, 221, 245, 246, 247, 253, 278 Eucharist/The Lord’s Supper 110, 151, 152, 153, 157, 158, 159, 221, 226, 233, 241–256 Faith 24, 29–31, 34, 36–38, 67, 104–110, 116, 118, 138, 152, 156f, 159, 161, 165– 173, 178, 180–182, 186, 188–190, 204, 221–225, 227–235, 241, 246–250, 252f, 265, 270, 275, 278, 281, 290, 310, 322, 332–335 Freedom 23f, 26, 61, 65f, 68, 113f, 125, 202f, 228, 258f, 262, 264, 266, 291f, 294, 297–299, 301–304 Free Will 15f, 18, 22–28, 32–35, 38–40, 126, 183, 334

346

Index of Subjects

Heidelberg Catechism 61, 172, 290f, 295f, 307, 330 Huguenots 258–266 Humanism 63, 177, 245, 257 Hungarian Reformation 59–77, 177–194 Islam

59f, 63, 67

Justification 15f, 18–20, 28f, 49, 55, 139f, 152, 159f, 167, 170, 181f, 203f, 213, 280f, 323, 333 Kappel Wars

257

Lutheranism (Lutheran, Lutherans) 16, 46, 48, 51, 56, 60 f, 61, 62, 63, 65, 66, 68f, 69, 70, 86, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 121, 123, 124, 125, 126, 142, 151, 152, 153, 156, 177, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 185, 187, 191, 195, 236, 246f, 247, 258, 279, 270, 271, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282 Marriage

45–56, 190

Ottoman Empire

60, 66f

Papacy 37, 103–105, 108–110, 140f, 153, 200 (Semi-)Pelegianism 21, 22, 26, 27, 28, 32, 33, 34, 35, 38, 39, 202, 203

Persecution 36, 63, 69, 109, 113, 118, 222, 224f, 227f, 231, 235, 258f, 261, 265f Pluralism 15–44, 68, 177, 231, 257–268 Portraits 81–102 Predestination 15f, 22–25, 28–30, 32, 34, 38–40, 46, 203, 289f, 292, 294, 305, 322 Purity 53–55, 157, 160, 216, 241, 243, 249f, 252 Reformed confessions 329 Remonstrantism 313, 315, 317 Sabbatarianism 69 Sacraments 71, 144, 156, 160, 181, 183, 226, 244 Schmalkaldic War 257 Scholasticism 198 Secularization 269, 280 Sola gratia 133 Sola Scriptura 104, 182, 271 Synod of Dordt 285, 287, 289–291, 307– 309, 315, 318, 321, 323, 335 Tolerance 68, 113, 115, 120, 123, 133, 152, 229, 231, 260, 265 Trinity 116, 159, 200, 322f, 333, 346 Unitarianism

62, 63, 66, 69, 70, 71

Author Information

Dr. Erik A. de Boer is Professor in Church History at Theological University Kampen, extraordinary professor in Reformation History at VU University Amsterdam, the Netherlands, and research associate of Free State University Bloemfontein, South-Africa. Rev. Dr. Graeme Chatfield is Associated Dean and Director of Research at the Australian College of Theology, Sydney, Australia. Prof. Dr. Wim François is Research Professor at the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies at KU Leuven, Belgium. Dr. Csilla Gábor is University Profssor at the Babes,-Bolyai University in Cluj, Romania. Dr. Aurelio A. García is Professor of Humanities at the College of General Studies, University of Puerto Rico at Río Piedras. Dr. Antonio Gerace is PhD Candidate in Religious Studies at KU Leuven, Belgium and the Fondazione per le scienze religiose Giovanni XXIII in Bologna. Dr. Jane Schatkin Hettrick is Professor of Music emeritus at Rider University, Lawrenceville, New Jersey, USA. Dr. Gábor Ittzés is Associate Professor at Debrecen Reformed Theological University, Debrecen, Hungary. Jeannette Kreijkes MA is PhD student at the University of Groningen, The Netherlands and the KU Leuven, Belgium.

348

Author Information

Dr. (Ph.D.) Balázs Dávid Magyar is a Calvin Researcher and Religion-Ethics Teacher at Bocskai István Gimnázium and Baltazár Dezso˝ Református Általános Iskola, Hajdúböszörmény, Hungary. Prof. Dr. Tomoji Odori is Professor at the Faculty of Humanities, Musashi University, Tokyo, Japan. Marta Quatrale is PhD Candidate at the Freie Universität Berlin in Berlin, Germany. Dr. Donald Sinnema is Professor of Theology emeritus at Trinity Christian College, Holland, Michigan, USA. Gregory Soderberg is Academic Dean of LAMP Seminary RDU, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA and Ph.D. candidate at VU Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Dr. Herman Speelman is Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Early Modern Reformed Theology at the Theological University Kampen, The Netherlands. Edit Szegedi, PhD is Senior lecturer at the Babes¸-Bolyai University, Faculty for European Studies in Cluj-Napoca, Romania. Dr. Dolf te Velde is Assistant Professor of Systematic and Historical Theology at the Theological University Kampen, The Netherlands, and at the Evangelical Theological Faculty in Leuven, Belgium. Dr. Maria Lucia Weigel is an independent art historian in Heidelberg, Germany. Prof. Dr. Siegrid Westphal is University Professor for Early Modern History and Director of the Interdisciplinary Institute of Cultural History of Early Modern Times (IKFN) at the University of Osnabrück, Germany. Dr. Habil. Izabela Winiarska-Górska is senior specialist at the University of Warsaw in Warsaw, Poland.